CONTENTdm
British Columbia Historical Books Collection
Behring Sea Claims Commission
United States
Great Britain. Bering Sea Commissioners
viii, 1008 pages ; 34 cm
application/pdf
BEHRING SEA CLAIMS COMMISSION. RECORD OF EVIDENCE TAKEN AT VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, BY THE COMMISSIONERS, UNDER THE CONVENTION OF FEBRUARY 8, 1896, GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES. VOL. I. (Pages 1-1008 incl.) TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1st Session. November 23, 1896. pp. 1-12. Commission declared formally opeued. Announcement of appointments. Appearances of counsel. Submission of proposed rules. Discussion thereon. 2nd Session. November 24, 1896.' pp. 12-15. Claims Nos. 1 to 11 filed. Submission of amendments to rules. Announcement concerning adoption of rules. Claims Nos. 12 to 16 filed. 3rd Session. November 25, 1896. p. 15. Authorization for receiving and filing claims between sessions. 4th Session. November 27,1896. pp. 15-16. Motion and order for taking deposition of Andrew D. Laing before Special Examiner. 5th Session. November 28,1896. pp. 16-37. Discussion concerning rules. Motions to dismiss as to Claim No. 5, "Black Diamond," and part of Claim No. 11, "Ada" argued and taken-.under consideration. 6th Session. November 30, 1896. pp. 37-40. Discussion concerning rules. Additional rule announced. Motion to dismiss as to Claim .No. 26, " Costs in Say ward Case," taken up and argument deferred. 7th Session. December 2, 1896. pp. 41-106. Claim No. 1, " Carolena" taken up. 'Summary of pleadings. Extracts from Senate Document 106, containing copy of record .of proceedings against "Carolena," read in evideuce. Discussion. Further extracts containing portions of correspondence and U. S. Statutes read in evidence. John Margotich examined in Claim No. 3, "Onward." Claim No. 1, ' Carolena" resumed. More correspondence read in evidence. Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 (G. B.) marked in evidence. William Munsie examined. Exhibits Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11 (G. B.) marked in evidence. 8th Session. December 3-, 1896. pp. 106-142. Examination of William Munsie resumed. Exhibits Nos. 12,13 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Discussion. John G. Cox examined. 9th Session. December 4, 1896. pp. 142-195. William Munsie recalled. Andrew J. Bechtel, John J. Robinson, Henry P. Siewerd, William Tupel, Walter Walker, Alexander Watson, Jr., Samuel McC. Smith examined. Exhibit No. 14 (G. B.) marked in evidence. 10th Session. December 5, 1896. pp. 195-218. • Cross-examination of S. McC. Smith waived. Orlando Warner examined. Statements by counsel. A. J. Bechtel recalled. John Sabiston and John Clark examined. Discussion. Transcript from B.echtel's stub-book. 11th Session. December 7, 1896. pp. 219-251. Exhibit No. .15 (G-.B-) marked in evidence. Alexander R. Milne examined., Exhibits No. 16 (G. B.) and No. 1 (JJ. S.) marked in evidence. J. D. Warren and Charles Spring examined. Exhibit No. 17 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Discussion. 12fh Session. December 8, 1896. pp. 252-303. Decision on motions to dismiss deferred by consent. William T. Bragg and Owen Thomas examined. Extracts from deposition of A. D. Laing. Exhibit No. 18 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Extract from case of United States at Paris read in evidence. Victor Jacobson, J. D. Warren, Wm. O'Leary, Emile Ramlas and Gustave Hansen examined. 13th Session. December 9, 1896. pp. 303-353. Abstract of catch put in evidence. Exhibits Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 (G. B.) marked in evidence. A. Reopen examined. Statements by counsel. J. D. Warren, 0. A. Goffin, W. D. Byers, C. A. Lundberg and R. E. McKeil examined. Discussion. Neals Moss examined. Discussion. Chas. Spring and R. J. Ker examined. Discussion. 14th Session. December 10, 1896. pp. 354-367. Statements by counsel. P. R. -Brown examined. Case of Great Britain closed, reserving certain rights. Case of United States opened. Discussion. Extracts from documents read in evidence. 15th Session. December 11, 1896. pp. 367-415. Discussion. Case of United States in Claim No. 1 resumed. John Cotsford examined. Letter from James Ogilvie read in evidence. Exhibit No. 26 (G. B.) marked in evidence. A. J. BechteL examined. Discussion. Exr- hibit No. 2 (TJ. S.) marked in evidence. A. McLean examined. Discussion. Examination continued. 16th Session. December 12, 1896. pp. 415-442. A. McLean's examination resumed. Discussion, amination continued. Ex- 17th Session. December 14, 1896. pp. 442-497. A. McLean's examination resumed. A. B. Alexander examined. Discussion. Examination continue | Exhibits Nos. 3 (TJ. S.) and 27 (G. B.) marked in evdence. C E. Raynor examined. 18th Session. December 15, 1896. pp. 497-553. . C E. Raynor's examination resumed. Discussion. C. E. Raynor further examined. E. P. Miner examined. Discussion. Examination continued. 19th Session. December 16, 1896. pp. 553-602. Discussion. E. P. Miner's examination resumed. Discussion. E. C. Baker and Wm. Munsie examined. Exhibit No. 4 (U. S.) marked in evidence. Discussion. E. P. Miner's examination resumed. Discussion. Case of Great Britain in rebuttal opened. D.Russell examined. Discussion. W. D. Byers examined. Further testimony of this witness was taken at this Session with reference to Claim No. 14 (see pp. 776-781). 20th Session. December 17, 1896. pp. 603-604. W. E. Baker was examined. Testimony of W. E. Baker (pp. 715-730 and 781-783) and Laughlin McLean (pp. 730- 746) and Wm. Cox (pp. 754-759) was taken with reference to subsequent claims. m TABLE OF CONTESTS. Mts. in 21st Session. December 18, 1896. pp. 604-613. W. T. Bragg examined. Testimony of C. N. Cox, Wm. Cox (pp. 759-764), W. T. Bragg (pp. 764-766), Wm. O'Leary (pp. 766-774), C. A. Lundberg (pp. 783-801) was taken with reference to subsequent claims. 22nd Session. December 19, 1896. pp. 613-631. Gustave Hansen, C. N. Cox and Emile Ramlas further examined. James Munger examined in rebuttal. Discussion. A. R. Bissett (pp. 774^776) and Gustave Hansen (pp. 801-804) were examined with reference to subsequent claims. 23rd Session. December 21, 1896. pp. 631-670. . James Munj<er's examination resumed. M. M. Serault was examined in rebuttal. T. H. Brown examined. Exhibits Nos. 28 and 29 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Chas. Hackett, Victor Jacobson and R. J. Ker examined. Alexander Reppen (pp. 821-826) was examined with reference to subsequent claims. 24th Session. December 22, 1896. pp. 670-684. Exhibits Nos. 30 and 31 (G. B.) marked in evidence. R. E. McKeil, R. J. KeT, W. G. Goudie and Theodore Lubbe examined. Discussion. Laughlin McLean (pp. 746-754) and Gustave Hansen (pp. 805-821) examined with reference to subsequent claims. 25th Session. December 23, 1896. pp. 684-715. Theodore Lubbe's examination resumed. Discussion. E. C. Baker, S. W. Bucknam, Louis Olsen and G. D. Logan examined. l 26th Session. December 24, 1896. pp. 826-850. Discussion. Claim No. 2," Thornton," taken up. Statement of Claim. H. J. Cook and Walter Walker examined. H. J. Cook recalled. Orlando Warner, Wm. Turpel and John Dallas examined. A. Watson, Jr., Gustave Hansen, Louis Olsen aud C. Spring examined (pp. 1941-1950). 27th Session. December 26, 1896. pp. 850-872. Claim No. 3, | Onward," taken up. H. J. Cook, Orlando Warner, Samuel Sea, Alexander Watson, Jr., W. Walker and C. Spring examined. Exhibits Nos. 32 and 50 (G. B.) marked in evidence. 28th Session. December 28, 1896. pp. 872-922. C. Spring's examination resumed. Letters from Daniel Monroe read in evidence. Exhibits Nos. 33 and 34 (G. B.) marked in evidence. M. Harkin examined. Exhibits Nos. 35; 36 and 37 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Transfer of testimony from other claims made. Claim No. 3, " Onward," resumed. Case of United States opened. Exhibit No. 5 (U. S.) marked in evidence. C. E. Raynor examined. C. Spring recalled. Claim No. 2, "Thornton" resumed. Exhibits Nos. 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44 and 45 (G. B.) marked in evidence. J. D. Warren examined. December 29, 1896. pp. 922-963. with reference to subsequent 29th Session. J. Anderson examined claims. Claim No. 2, "Thornton," resumed. J. D. Warren examined. Inventory read in evidence. Exhibits Nos. 46 and 47 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Discussion. Exhibits Nos. 48 and 49 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Discussion. 30th Session. December 30, 1896. pp. 963-1007. W. Sleightholme examined. Documents read m evidence. J. D. Warren and J. W. Griffiths examined. Extracts from correspondence read in evidence. Claims Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 taken up. H. J. Cook, W. Walker examined. Claim No. 2, "Thornton," resumed. J. Irving, J. A. Thomson, G. F. Grant and H. G. Lewis examined. Exhibits Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Claims Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 resumed. J. A. Thomson examined. Case of United States in Claim No. 1 resumed. T. Magnesen examined. Claims Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 resumed. G. F. Grant and W. Turpel examined. 31st Session. December 31, 1896. pp. 1007-1048. Claims Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 continued. J. A. Thomson, S. McC. Smith and O Warner examined. S. McC. Smith recalled. Claim No. 2, " Thornton," resumed. A. Gray examined. Claims Nos. 6. 7, 9 a,nd 10 resumed. A. Gray examined. Discussion. Case of United States in Claim No. 1 resumed. P. Hickey examined. Claims Nos. 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10 resumed. G. W. Cavin, H. G. Lewis, R. Bennett and L. Olsen examined. Correspondence read in evidence. H. Paxton examined with reference to Claim No. 25 (pp. 1536-1540) and Claim No. 5 (pp. 1756-1765). 32nd Session. January 2, 1897. pp. 1048-1083. Discussion. Claims Nos. 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10 resumed. Documents read in evidence. C E. Raynor called on the part of the United States and examined. L. Olsen examined. Inventory read in evidence. A. McLean called on the pai-t of the United States and examined. Exhibit No. 6 (U. S.) marked in evidence. J. Steele and A. Folger called on the part of the United States and examined. 33rd Session. January 4, 1897. pp. 1084-1133. Case of United States in Claims Nos. 1 and 2 resumed. M. L. Keefe examined. Documents read in evidence. J. D. Warren examined. Documents read in evidence. Case of Great Britain in Claim No. 2 resumed. W. F. Bullen examined. The deposition of Andrew D. Laing read in evidence. Exhibits Nos. 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66. 67 and 68 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Documents read in evidence. Case of United States in Claim No. 1 resumed. A. McLean, C- E. Raynor and C. E. Clark examined. Claims Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 resumed- M. F. Keefe examined. Documents read in evidence. Discussion. J. D. Warren examined. 34th Session. \ Claims Nos. 2, 6, examined. January 5, 1897. pp. 1134-1175. 7, 9 and 10 resumed. J. D. Warren 35th Session. January 6, 1897. pp. 1175-1224. Claims Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 resumed. Exhibit No. 69 (G. B.) marked in evidence. J. D. Warren, W. J. Ward and C. F. Dillon examined. Discussion. Exhibits Nos. 70, 71, 72 and 73 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Documents read in evidence. Claim No. 11, " Ada" taken up: J. Gaudin and J. J. Gray examined. 36th Session. January 7, 1897. pp. 1224-1276. J. J. Gray examination continued. Accounts read in evidence. II. F. Siewerd examined. Documents read in evidence. Case of United States opened in Claim No. 11. C. E. Raynor examined. Discussion. C. E. Raynor's ex- TABLE OF CONTESTS. V amination continued. Documents read in evidence. A. McLean examined. Case of United States in Claims Nos. •6, 7, 9,10 and 11 resumed. J. D. Warreii examined. Discussion. 37th Session. January 8, 1897. pp. 1276-1337. Letters read in evidence. Discussion. Documents read in evidence. Claim No. 4, "Favourite" taken up. Exhibit No. 74 (G. B.) marked in evidence. C. Spring examined. Account read in evidence. Claim No. 11 resumed. R. Collister examined. Claims Nos. 2, 6, 7, 9 ■and 10 resumed. Theodore Davie examined. Exhibit No. 7 (U. S.) marked in evidence. Claim No. 4 resumed. C. Spring and N. Moss examined. Case of United Slates •opened in Claim No. 4. A. McLean examined. Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9 (U. S.) and Nos. 75 and 76 (G. B.) marked in evidence. 38th Session. January 9, 1897. pp. 1337-1359. , Transfer of evidence. Claim No. 13, " Juanita," taken up. Exhibit No. 77 (G. B.) marked in evidence. C. E. Clark examined. Exhibit No. 78 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Richard Hall examined. Account read in evidence. C. E. Clark recalled. Exhibit No. 79 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Discussion. 39th Session. January 11, 1897. pp. 1359-1400. Claim No. 8, " Alfred Adams" taken up. Exhibit No. 80 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Discussion. Order amending pleadings entered. Exhibits Nos. 81 and 82 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Document read in evidence. Morris Gutman examined. Discussion. Documents read in evidence. Exhibit No. 10 (Q. S.) marked in evidence. Claim No. 20, "Kate," taken up. C. Spring, Alexander Reppen and N. Moss examined. C. Spring recalled. Exhibit No. 83 (G. B.) marked in evidence. N. Moss recalled. Claim No. 12, little " Triumph," taken up. Order amending pleadings entered. H. Smith examined. 40th Session. January 12, 1897. pp. 1400-1416. H. Smith's examination resumed. Geo. Byrns examined. Exhibit No. 84 (G. B.) marked in evidence. H. Smith recalled. Claim No. 23," Oscar and JSattie," taken up. Exhibits Nos. 85 and 86 (G. B.) marked in evidence. J. 1^. Penney examined. Exhibits Nos. 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 and 94 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Discussion. Examination continued. 41st Session. January 13, 1897. pp. 1417-1465. Claim No. 18, "Triumph," taken up. Exhibit No. 95 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Document read in evidence. E. 0. Baker examined. Account read in evidence. Examination continued. Extract from log read in evidence. Exhibit No. 11 (U. S.) marked in evidence. Claim No. 17, "Minnie,'' taken up. Exhibit No. 96 (G. B.) marked in evidence. T. Magnesen and Victor Jacobson examined. Exhibit No. 97 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Documents read in evidence. Claim No. 18 resumed. E. C. Baker recalled. J. C. Blackett examined. Exhibit No. 12 (U. S.) marked in evidence. Discussion. Claim No. 19, "Ariel," taken up. Exhibit No. 98 (G. B.) marked in evidence. S. W. Bucknam examined. 42nd Session. January 14, 1897. pp. 1465-1507. S. W. Bucknam's examination resumed. Discussion. S. W„ Bucknam recalled. H. Smith and G. C. Gerow ex- amined. Discussion. Claim No. 14, " Pathfinder," taken up. Exhibit No. 99 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Discussion. Order amending pleadings examined. entered. Munsie 43rd Session. January 15, 1897. pp. 1507-1553.: Claim No. 24, " Winifred," taken up. Statements by counsel. W. C. Coulson examined. Extracts from cut- Claim No. 23 resumed. Document read in evidence. Claim No. 19 resumed. S. W. Bucknam examined. Exhibit No. 100 (G. B.) marked in evidence.. Claim No. 25, " Wanderer," taken up. H. Paxton's testimony printed. A. Bjerre examined. Exhibit No. 101 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Claim No. 14 resumed. Wm. Munsie examined. Exhibit No. 13 (IT. S.) marked in evidence. 44th Session. January 16, 1897. pp. 1553-1580. Claim No. 24 resumed. Statement of W. C. Coulson. Wm. Munsie's examination continued. Exhibits Nos. 14 and 15 (U. S.) marked in evidence. . Claims Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 resumed. H. M. Thornton called on the part of the United States and examined (also pp. 1605-1609). Special examiner appointed to take his deposition after adjournment. 45th Session. January 18, 1897. pp. 1580-1629. Claim No. 14 resumed. Wm. Munsie recalled. Exhibit No. 102 (G. B.) marked in evidence. F. Carue, Jr., examined. Document read in evidence. Discussion. Exhibit No. 16 (U. S.) marked in evidence. Claims Nos. 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10 resumed. Deposition of H. M. Thornton, taken Jan. 16th, read in evidence. C. E. Raynor and H. Norman examined. Claim No. 17 resumed. V. Jacobson and A. L. Belyea examined. Claims Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 resumed, J. D. Warren recalled. Discussion. Condition of Claims* Nos. 14, 24 and 25 considered. 46th Session. January 19,. 1897. pp. 1629-1679. Discussion. Report of Consul Myers read in evidence. Claim «JVb. 14 resumed. W. Munsie examined. Exhibit No. 17 (U- S.) marked in evidence. Claim No. 22, "Henrietta," taken up. Exhibit No. 103 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Documents read in evidence. M. Pinckney examined. Exhibits Nos. 104, 105, 106, 107 and 108 (G B.) marked in evidence. T. J. Hampton, W. Ebmeier and C. Doring examined. 47th Session. January 20, 1897. pp. 1679-1723. Claim No. 22 resumed. M. Pinckney examined. Case of United States in Claim No. 1 resumed. M. Turner and A. Andersen examined. M. Turner recalled. W. H. Thorn- ley examined. 4Sth Session. January 21, 1897. pp. 1723-1772. W. H. Thornley's examination continued. F. Payne and P. C.Meyer examined. Claim No. 22 resumed. C Spring and W. Turpel examined. Order entered in Claim No. 18 with reference to returning Exhibit. Claims Nos. 22 and 24 resumed. A. L. Belyea, J. F. Fell and H. Siddall examined. Exhibit No. 109 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Transfer of evidence made. Claim No. 24 resumed. Order amending pleadings entered. Exhibit No. 110 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Documents read in evidence. C- Spring examined. Claim No. 5, " Black Diamond," taken up. H. Paxtou's testimony printed. Claim No. 22 re- TABLE OP CONTENTS. VTI sumed. Exhibit No. 18 (U. S.) marked in evidence. Claim No. 5 resumed. Claim No. 15, "Black Diamond," taken up. Owen Thomas examined. Claim No. 1 resumed. Owen Thomas examined. 49th Session. January 22, 1S97. pp. 1772-1809. Statements by counsel. Claims No. 5 and No. 15 resumed. Owen Thomas examined. Claim No. 1 resumed. W. H. Thornley examined. Discussion. Claim. No. 24 resumed. Exhibit No. Ill (G. B.) and No. 19 (U. S.) marked in evidence. Documents read in evidence. Claim No. 15 resumed. Exhibits Nos. 112 and 113 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Discussion. Stipulation concerning Claims No. 5 and No. 11 filed. 50th Session. January 23, Claim No. 21, "Pathfinder, Claim No. 15 resumed. Document read in evidence 897. pp. 1810-1825. taken up. Discussion. Claim No. 16, "Lily," taken up. read in evidence. Exhibits Nos. marked in evidence.. Discussion. Documents. Claims Nos. 2, 6, Document read in evidence. Discussion. Documents 114 (G. B.) and 20 (U. S.) Claim No. 1 resumed. 7, 9 and 10 resumed. 51st Session. January 25,1897. pp. 1825-1842. Claim No. 15 resumed. Documents l'ead in evidence. Exhibit No. 21 (U. S.) marked in evidence. Claim No. 14 resumed. Statement by counsel. Claim No. 8 resumed. Documents read in evidence. Claims Nos. 2, 3 and 16 resumed. Statements by counsel. Claim No. 26, "Say- ward Costs" taken up. Discussion concerning motion to dismiss. Exhibits Nos. 115, 116 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Transfer of evidence and closing of claim. Claim No. 25 formally opened. Discussion Documents read in evidence. Claims Nos. 6,7,9 and 10 resumed. T. H. Cooper examined. Exhibit No. 117 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Claim No. 11 resumed. J. J. Gray examined. Document read in evidence. 52nd Session. January 26, 1897. p. 1842. Adjournment of hearing. 53rd Session. January 27, 1897. pp. 1843-1862. Discussion. Claim No. 11 resumed. J. J. Gray examined. Claim No. 26 resumed. Order entered with respect to motion to dismiss. Claim No. 1 resumed. Exhibit No. 22 (U. S.) marked in evidence. Discussiou. References to documents. Exhibits Nos. 118, 119, 120 and 121 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Discussion. Claim No. 15 resumed. Document read in evidence. Claim No. 16 resumed. Statement by counsel. Claims Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 resumed. J. D. Warren examined. 54th Session. January 28, 1897. pp. 1862-1899. Claim No. 1 resumed. Statement by counsel as to agreed valuation of skins. Wm. Munsie examined. Exhibits Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27 (U. S.) marked in evidence. J. D. Warren recalled. Exhibit No. 28 (U. S.) marked in evidence. Claims Nos. 6, 7, 9 and 10 resumed. Statement by J. D. Warren. Richard Hall examined. Exhibit No. 122 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Discussion. Exhibit No. 29 (U. S.) marked in evidence. Discussion. Claim No. 1 resumed. L. Olsen examined. Order entered with respect to substitution of copies of Exhibits in Claim No. 11. Claims Nos. 15 and 16 resumed. J. D. Warren examined. Claim No. 1 resumed. T. Lubbe examined. yin TABLE OF CONTENTS. Discussion. Examination continued. Classification of seal skins read in evidence. Claim No. 22 resumed. C. Spring examined. Discussion. Claim No. 12 resumed. Exhibit No. 123 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Case of United States in Claim No. 1 resumed. A. McLean and C. E. Ravnor examined. 55th Session. January 29, 1897. pp. 1899-1927. Discussion. Claim No. 25 resumed. Statement by counsel. Claim No. 1 resumed. Documents read in evidence. B. H. T. Drake examined. Document read in evidence. Discussion. Claim No. 11 resumed. Documents read in evidence. Claims Nos. 8,15 and 16 resumed. A. R. Milne examined. Claim No. 1 resumed. Order entered denying application for com mission. R. Beaven examined. Discussion. Claims Nos. 15 and 16 resumed. Agreed statement by counsel. Claim No. 1 resumed. Discussion. .897. pp. 1928-1970. in evidence. T. Lubbe 56th Session. January 30, Discussion. Document read examined on the part of the United States. Discussion. F. Siewerd's statement. G. Hansen examined on the part of Great Britain. Testimony of A. Watson, Jr , G. Hansen, L. Olsen and C. Spring printed. Great Britain rests in all cases. Counsel for United States make statement and rest in all cases. Great Britain's case in rebuttal in Claim No. 1 resumed. A. McLean examined. Discussion. Documents read in evidence. Great Britain's case in rebuttal in Claims Nos. 2, 3 and 18 taken up. Discussion. Exhibit No. 125 (G. B.) marked in evidence. Great Britain's case in rebuttal in Claims Nos 2, 6, 7, 9 and 10- taken up. Exhibit No. 124 (G. B.) marked in evidence. J. Bos- cowitz examined. 57th Session. February 1, 1897. pp. 1971-1989. J. Boscowitz's examination continued. Exhibits Nos. 30 (U. S.) and 126 and 127 (G. B.) marked in evidence.' Documents read in evidence. United States case in sur- rebuttal in Claim No. 2 taken up. A. McLean and C. Spring examined. Discussion. Exhibit No. 128 (G. B.) marked in evidence. 58th Session. February 2, 1897. pp. 1990-2002. Communication from the two Governments concerning Claims Nos. 5 and 11 received by the Commissioners and filed. Agreement between counsel with regard to printing. Discussion. Claims Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 resumed. Document read in evidence. Claim No. 8 resumed. A. Frank examined. Discussion. Statements by counsel. Agreement as to transferring testimony. Adjournment of Commission. io 20 Before the Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America, for the Settlement of Claims Presented by Great Britain Against the united States in Virtue of the Convention of February 29, 1892. At the Chambers of the Legislative Assembly in the City of Victoria, Province of British Columbia, this Twenty-third Day of November, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Bight Hundred and Ninety-six (1896). 30 40 50 60 At three o'clock.in the afternoon of this day, the Honourable George Edwin King, Commissioner on the part of Her Britannic Majesty, and the Honourable Wiiram L. Putnam. Commissioner on the part of the United States of America, appeared and took their seats. Thereupon the Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty made the following announcements on his own behalf and on behalf and at the request of his associate Commissioner: The Commissioner on the.part of. Her Majesty:—JPhe sitting of the Commissioners under the convention of February. 8, 1896, for the settlement of claims presented hy Great Britain against the Ignited States hy virtue of the Convention of February 29, 1892, is now open. The Commissions have heen interchangeably examined and found correct. The Commissioners have severally taken the oath required by the Convention. They have appointed as Secretary Mr. Chandler P. Ander-* son, of the City of New Yqjifc. I shall read the formal appointment that has been made. The appointment ;was read and Mr. Anderson took his seat as Secretary. The Commissioner on the part of the powei*s given to appoint clerks, ments have been made, which will be Her Majesty:—Under a number of appoint- read by the Secretary fhe Secretary then read the list of the appointments.) The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The Commissioners have been advised by the respective governments, of counsel who have been selected to appear before the Commission, viz:—The Hon. Don M. Dickinson,, of the.City of Detroit, in the State of Michigan, for the Tnited States of America, and Robert Lansing, Esq., of Wafertown, in the State of New York, as associate counsel. And, on behalf of Her Majesty, the Hon. Frederick Peters, of <'harlottetown. in the Province of Prince Edwards Island, A1 fomey-General. of said Province, and Frederick L. Beique,. Q. C, of Montreal, in the Province of Quebec, as associate counsel, and Ernest Victor Bodwell, barrister, of the (iiv of Victoria, who appears as General Solicitor for Her Majesty. These are the counsel, so far at least as we have been advised. The Commissioners desire to put upon record their gratification with the facilities furnished them by the Province of British Columbia for their sessions at the Citv of Vic- 20 3° 4° $o- 6o Mr. Peters:—Your Honours announced that the Commission had official notice that certain counsel were appointed on behalf of Great Britain. As senior counsel, I would like to announce that it is our desire that Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper also be associated with us as Counsel for Great Britain, he having been retained especially by people parti cularly interested in the matter. We take it that the. question of associate counsel is a matter entirely resting with the senior counsel, and we therefore desire that Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper should be associated with us The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—On your own responsibility, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—I take the responsibility of it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Neither Sir Charles nor anyone else can speak here except for Her Majesty's Government. Mr. Peters:--That is the position we take, that there are only two parties before this court—the Government of the United States and the Government of Great Britain. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Then my associate agrees with me that Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper be recognized as associate counsel in behalf of Her- Majesty's Government, on your responsibility as senior counsel. Mr. Peters:—In reading the list of counsel, if I understood Justice King correctly, he read the name of Mr. Bodwell as solicitor only and agent. As a matter of fact, the instruction I have is that he is also' junior counsel, and that is the understanding. To my own knowledge he was appointed local agent and junior counsel. The Commissioner on the part of the LTnited States:—We agree that that may stand on the same footing as with reference to Sir Charles H. Tupper. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is there any other suggestion that counsel have to make as to the business of the day? Mr. Dickinson:—May it please the Commissioners: I desire to present, merely to have it go upon record, Charles B. Warren, Esq., a member of the Federal bar and of the State bar in the United States, to attend to such duties as may be assigned to him by the counsel of the United States. This is in accordance with the precedent, may it please your Honours, on prior commissions. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Does that include the matter of counsel? Mr. Dickinson:—We assume, may the Commissioners please, that the Counsel appointed are officially notified by their respective governments, and we do not feel, in behalf of our government, that we "are authorized to name other counsel. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Not then to be heard as counsel? Mr. Dickinson:—For such duties as we assign. It is in accordance with the precedent, of other commissions. After some discussion between counsel and the Commissioners, it was agreed that the daily sessions shall be from 10 o'clock in the morning until 4 o'clock in the afternoon, f 10 20 30 40 So 60 with an hour's intermission, from one to two, until otherwise ordered by the Commissioners. Mr. Peters:—The counsel of the United States and myself took upon ourselves the drafting of certain rules which we propose to submit to this Tribunal, merely as suggestions. Some of those rules we agreed upon, so far as we were concerned, and some of them we were unable to agree upon; and, if it will be of any assistance to this Tribunal, I will be happy to lay that draft before you now. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—We will be very happy to receive them, as I understand there has been a concurrence of counsel in a large number, which concurrence will be noted, I presume. Mr. Peters:—Yes, your Honour. I was going to explain to the Commission that that draft I am presenting now is the complete one, with the objectionable clause in it. I have a separate one with the clause as proposed—clause 4- These rules, I may state, are founded to a certain extent, upon the rules followed by the Tribunal at Halifax, the Fisheries Tribunal. Clause 4, as proposed by me, is as follows: "4. As far as practicable, each claim shall be proceeded with separately, and the evidence thereon on both sides closed, before the proceedings on any other claim are begun; except such evidence as may be specially reserved to be adduced later on on special cause shown." That was the clause as proposed on behalf of Her Britan nic Majesty. As friend on the other which you have in "4. On such day sioners, the counsel 1 counter proposition to that, my learned side, Mr. Dickinson, proposed the clause your hand, as follows: as shall have been fixed by the Commis- for the British Government shall proceed to adduce their evidence in support of the claims of Her Britannic Majesty's Government, in the order of their presentation. So soon as the British Government shall have closed its evidence upon all said claims, the evidence on behalf of the United States shall be adduced in the same order, and after such evidence is presented, the evidence in rebuttal, if any, in like manner may be given." The difference between us is, that the L'nited States Government proposes that the British counsel shall put their whole case in, all their claims, before they are called on to give any evidence. That is, generally speaking, the difference between us. We contend that under the Convention these claims are treated as separate and distinct claims, that the proceedings before this commission should follow the same rule, and that these cases should be treated, so far" as possible, as separate claims. We submit, and it appears to us, that it would be unfair to ask us to put in all our evidence, and allow them to keep back all their evidence and give it in one mass. It appears to us that it would give an undue advantage to the case of the United States, and that the proper rule would be to try each case, so far as practicable, separately. That is the contention we have on that rule. Of course, as I said before, these are mere suggestions, but, so far as the suggestions are concerned, we are agreed, with the exception of rule 4, as to which we entirely disagree. Mr. Dickinson:—I will read the last which I understand there is objection. rule proj >roposed, to Mr. Peters:—The objection we had to it was that we thought the Commission already had the power to deal with all questions proposed by that rule, and that rule might be construed as an attempt to limit its powers. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You are referring now to rule 16? Mr. Peters:—The rule I was about to read. Mr. Dickinson:—This is the rule which I handed my learned friend this morning, but he omitted to bring his copy. jo (Proposed rule read.) It clears the way to the production of documentary testimony and saves all question, because the originals are not presented. Mr. Peters:—I do not object to the rule, provided it is not construed as limiting the powers under the words "authentic evidence." I thought, perhaps, some things might be "authentic evidence" which are not mentioned in that rule, and that is all. 20 The Commissioner on the part of Ihe United States:—Will you read it again, please. I do not quite catch the words objected to. Mr. Peters:—The words in the Convention are: "The Commissioners are authorized to receive all suitable authentic testimony concerning the same." This rule proposed by my learned friend simply describes one class of suitable authentic testimony, and there may be other evidence which would be just as suitable and just as authentic; and, if (hat 30 rule passed, it might be construed as limiting us to that kind of evidence only, thereby preventing us from putting in evidence which otherwise would be suitable and authentic. 1 have no objection to the rule so far as it goes, if it is not considered as limiting us entirely to that class. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Would not your objection be met if Mr. Dickinson should add to it, "this is not to be construed to limit the power of the Commission under a certain paragraph in the Convention? 4° Mr. Peters:—We accept that amendment. Mr. Dickinson:—So that you Honours see that in counsels* negotiations, which have been conducted with the utmost fairness on the side of the counsel for Her Majesty's Government, we have made some expedition in preparing for the session during our presence here in Victoria. We differ, as will be observed, only upon proposed rule 4, and there we differ radically. These claims are not presented separately. A claim is made by Her Majesty's Government upon the 5o Government of the United States for a sum of money claimed to be du« for damages resulting to British subjects by certain unlawful seizures made by the Government of the United States. It is true that in the Convention the evidence, to a certain extent, which goes to make up that claim is pointed out by a certain schedule naming the ships beyond which, and beyond the items named in the schedule—or the description of the ships named in the schedule—Her Majesty's Government cannot go, before this Commission. That was the object of the list of ships appended to the Conven- 99 tion and the list of claims pointing out the evidence tending to support the one claim of Her Majestv's Government for a sum of money against the United States. It would be against the theory of this Convention to hold that the Government of the United States should close its case in defence, in this assessment of damages, in Victoria. The theory of Ihe Convention, as finally agreed upon is, that the evidence to establfflii and verify the claim of Great Britain should be put in in Victoria, in British Columbia, but that 5 the claim of defence—the case of the United States—might be put in in the city of San Francisco; and for that purpose, to give the Commission proper powers, an Act of Congress was passed, signed by the President, and became a law. We may be mistaken, but we think not. At all events, the case of the United States in defence has been prepared on the theory that we were to put in our case in defence quite largely at San Francisco, and it is well settled that we could not compel certain reluctant witnesses in the City of San io Francisco, who have been engaged in the sealing business, to come to Victoria; and it is intended, as we understand it, by this convention that, so far as may be, the testimony shall be oral before your Honors, it appearing before the High Tribunal at Paris that there was a wide difference m the statements of the witnesses when informally presented by ex parte affidavits. There was no reconciling them: there was no attempt of the Tribunal to reconcile them. So that, with this difficulty apparent on the records of the Paris Tribunal, the representatives of Her Majesty's Government 20 and of the United States came together in Washington with certain facts settled, to-wit, the illegality of certain seizures; and with the record of the Paris Tribunal, and its difficulties, before them, they determined that this Commission should sit where the witnesses could be called before the Commission, put under oath by the Commission, seen by the Commission, and tell their stories under cross-examination before the Commission. Now, there is nothing of the case except what your Honours may find from the testimony of these witnesses. The case which your Honours will hear, 3° so far as the assessment of damages is concerned, will be, what property of British subjects has been seized under the authority of the United States Government, seized unlawfully, according to the findings of the Paris Tribunal. Other questions reserved by t he Award of the Tribunal are, whether the property claimed to have been seized, and claimed to have been owned by British subjects was in fact the property of British subjects, or, on the other hand, was the property of Americans •0 —or citizens of the United States—who, under cover of the British flag defied the laws of their country, were caught at it, and their property seized. The question will arise as to the citizenship of the owners of some of these vessels. That question is to be disposed of by the Tribunal, and is expressly reserved: but, as to the main question, the United States Government is as anxious as Her Majesty's Government, can be to have this sum fixed that we shall pay, and fixed as expeditiously as possible. We are not disputing the liability. The liability having been fixed, the United States 50 Government wants to pay the last dollar of damages for which it is liable, and to pay it as soon as the amount can be agreed upon, or fixed by this Commission. We approach 1lie subject with the same desire that our friends approach it. We desire, may it please your Honors, to know which side tells the truth, that is all. We cannot pay until someone shall assure us the amount that we shall pay. Until 1hat time we must depend upon this Commission—this High Commission—to investigate and weigh the testimony of the witnesses, and the counter-statements—the testimony 60 pro and con—and give us the amount. Whatever that amount may be, the Governemnt of the United States will pay cheerfully and promptly. We approach the subject, may it please the High Commission, with the fairness most conspicuously shown by Her Majesty's Government on its side when it named as Her Majesty's Commissioner, to sit here under the convention of 1896, the learned and distinguished gentleman who is as well known and distinguished or our side of the line as in the Dominion. Now. let us see—and this is of the utmost imnortance: IO 20 30 40 60 because we have prepared our case on the supposition that your Honors would at once see that the sitting of the Commission at San Francisco was necessary to us. The adoption of the plan of separate claims was for orderly and convenient procedure. The suggestion of the learned counsel for.Great Britain that they might want to use some testimony under one head at some subsequent stage of the case, we at once acceded to, and the other rule was drafted under which any testimony previously taken could be used under any other head; and unless your Honours are prepared to hold that you will hold but this one session, and that we must bring here, or fail to have our proof, witnesses who will not come from San Francisco, then this rule cannot be adopted. There is no disposition, of course, and I do not think that my learned friend intended to impute to us any such disposition, to take any unfair advantage at any point. We desire to proceed in the most orderly and most expeditious way. Put we must insist that the theory of the Convention as to our si'ting at San Francisco shall be held to, and if held to, we cannot open our case on this claim for damages against our Government, or the assessment of damages, until our friends have closed theirs. Hon. Mr. Peters, Q. C, Counsel for Her Majesty:—May it please the Commissioners, I entirely agree with my learned f riend as to the manner in which these proceedings should be approached. I must say that I feel greatly gratified at the way in which he has expressed himself in reference to the spirit in which he intends to approach the consideration of this case. My learned friend has laid down certain doctrines in relation to the questions that are before this Commission. With those questions I, at present, have nothing to do, and I will content myself by saying now, that I differ from him in regard to his statements on certain of these points. I refer particularly to his references to the question of American citizenship and the question of American ownership. Later on, it is probable that these matters may be discussed before this Commission, but, just now, I have nothing more to say about them, than simply to remark that they will be considered in due time. At the present moment, the question before us is: Should or should not each case be considered separately. If I understand correctly the substantial objection taken by my learned friend to our form of rule is this: It is apparent, he says, that it is intended that this Commission shall sit in San Francisco; and he adds that he wishes to have his witnesses examined viva voce and subject to cross-examination. With the latter statement I entirely agree. But, merely a glance at the Convention will shew that it is not at all a matter of course that the Convention shall sit in San Francisco. We may sit there, or we may not sit there. Article 2 of the Convention reads as follows:— "The Commission shall also sit at San Francisco, California, as well as Victoria, provided that either Commissioner shall so lequest, if he shall be of opinion that the interests of justice shall so require for reasons to be recorded on the minutes." In the first place, therefore, there can be no> session of the Commission at San Francisco unless one of the Commissioners—not the Counsel, but one of the Commissioners—requests that the Commission shall sit there. It therefore appears at the very outset that whether this Commission shall sit at San Francisco or not, does not depend on the wish of Counsel on either side, but it depends entirely upon a request for such sitting being made by one of the Commissioners, and also, it provides this, "When that Commissioner shall be of opinion that the interests of justice shall so require for reasons to be recorded on the minutes." 10 20 4° 6o My learned friend starts out with what seems to me to be a fallacy when he makes it appear as a matter of course that the United States case, or a great part of it, is going to be put in at San Francisco. Even when we come to consider the question of whether we are to sit at San Francisco or not, that point is not at all material. Now, I ask the Commissioners to consider the rule which we propose. \Yc do nof propose that Counsel for the United States shall be compelled to bring the evidence which they have in San Francisco and put it in here in Victoria. The rule as drafted by us expressly states— "4. As far as practicable, each claim shall be proceeded with separately, and the evidence thereon on both sides closed, before the proceedings on any other claim are begun; except such evidence as may be specially reserved to be adduced later on on special cause shown." What we propose by that is, that if my learned friend states—and we want nothing more than a statement—that he has such and such evidence to produce in San Francisco, of course that evidence will be reserved to be produced later on, if we should go to San Francisco. It is just the same with regard to the British Counsel. We may have evidence ourselves to produce In San Francisco, and we never intended for a moment that the other side should he compelled to bring their witnesses from San Francisco and examine them at Victoria. The rule which we propose provides against that, and we leave it simply and solely in the discretion of the Commissioners. If either Commissioner should say that either party to the case should have this witness or that witness examined in San Francisco, all the Commissioner has to do Is to state, that in his opinion the interests of justice require that that evidence shall be taken in San Francisco, and consequently such evidence would be reserved until we get to that city. The rule as proposed by us will in no way affect'the right of my learned friend to produce evidence in San Francisco, nor will it in any way affect his right to examine and cross-examine witnesses. I agree.with him as to the almost valuelessness of evidence given by affidavit. We do not propose to give evidence under affidavit, except in certain cases which will come before the Commissioners for consideration when it is tendered, if it should be tendered. We want to examine the witnesses viva voce and to cross- examine his witnesses just as much as he wants to cross- examine ours. I cannot at all see that the rule which my learned friend proposes will make things any better. What object can there be in it We have a session of the Commission sitting in Victoria now. Why should not we on our side, and he on his side, produce in every case all the evidence we may have ready in that case. The rule as proposed by my learned friend would make it absolutely necessary that in the first place we should give all our' evidence and then have an adjournment to San Francisco. Then if we had rebuttal evidence, it would make it necessary for us to come back here and have another session at Victoria. That would be absolutely necessary under the rule proposed by my learned friend, and I submit to the Commission that it would be neither advisable nor convenient. And, how would the matter further work under the rule proposed by Counsel for the United States. Suppose that we have witnesses to produce in San Francisco, which is quite probable, will we have to get all that evidence in before he gives any evidence here in Victoria. Take another case which may very likely arise. Suppose we have a witness to examine here, and a witness to examine in San Francisco. According to the proposal of my learned friend, we must take our evidence here, go down to San Francisco and get our evidence there, and then come back here in order to enable him to produce the evidence which he has in Victoria. If that were the IO 20 30 40 60 rule, the Commission would be changing about all the time from one city to the other. It appears to me that the rule suggested by Mr. Dickinson would cause a great deal of unnecessary inconvenience to the Commissioners, and in addition to that, I say that it would not place the British claim in that position which it ought to be placed in. We have many separate cases here, and by the terms of this Convention they are treated as separate cases, and this Tribunal has to find upon them separately. This Commission is not authorized, as in the case of the Geneva Arbitration to find a lump sum, but the duty of this Tribunal, as pointed out in black and white in the Convention, is, that upon each case a separate finding has to be made. That will be found in Article'3: "The said Commissioners shall determine the liability of the United States., if any, in respect of each claim, and assess the.amount of compensation, if any, to be paid on account thereof—so far as they shall be abie to agree thereon." Therefore the Commissioners will see that they have to find a separate judgment in each case. As a matter of fact, and very properly so, all the claims in these cases have been separately drawn up, so that a separate record of each case can be made by the Commissioners when they come to give their judgment. Whilst there are some cases in which for the sake pf convenience evidence may very well be grouped together, and there is some evidence which may very well be applied to all the cases, yet there are many cases that are entirely different in their nature the one from the other. The cases that arose in 1891 and 1892 are entirely and absolutely distinguished from the cases that arose in 18S6. They are altogether separate and distinct, and each case stands upon its own basis. Why should we be compelled to give the evidence applicable to all these cases all at the one time. As a mere matter of convenience and regularity, is it not better that each case should be treated as the Convention itself treats H, as a separate and distinct case. If that is done, and it is what we propose, we will be able to make a com plete record in each case, separating them one from another. The rule allowing the evidence given in one case to be received in a subsequent case, is simply for the sake of convenience, in order to save time, and not to have any useless repetition of evidence. Outside of that, it appears to us that it would be only right that we should take case No. 1, give . our evidence on it as far as we can, and then that the other side should come forward and give their evidence in refc- . en'ce.to it. At the very outset we should learn the one from the other, what the case on each side is. But the proposition of my learned friend is that we should put all our cases and all our evidence forward in the first instance, and then that they should bring up all their evidence. It may happen .we-may discover, that at the end of all this long evidence we have only been wasting time to a certain extent in producing evidence on certain points, which, when the United States comes to open their case, may turn out were not points in dispute at all. On every ground; on the ground of saving of time, on the ground of following out the terms of the Convention, on the ground of convenience; we submit that these cases should be treated as far as possible as separate cases. I do not think it is neeessary for me to make any other remarks with regard .to this rule. As a matter of lad, as I stated at the outset, these rules are submitted by Counsel merely as. suggestions. Their determination, of course, rests entirely with your lordships, and we leave it to you to decide. I heartily join with my learned friend, Mr. Dickinson, in the remarks he has, made with reference to the composition of this High Tribunal. It is to my mind a matter of the very greatest satisfaction that we have here an opportunity IO 20 30 40 60 of presenting our case before men whose great experience as judges enables us to say with certainty, that the case will be decided according to the well known principles of law, and justice and equity. Mr. Dickinson of Counsel for the United States:—Your Honors, I wish to say a few words in reply. 1 do not seem to have made myself clearly understood to my learned friend in stating my objections to this rule. Of course, 1 quite understand under the terms of the Convention that a session may be convened at San Francisco at the request of one of the Commissioners. I stated, however, that the proposition was first made by Her Majesty's Government to have one session at-Victoria, but the official negotiations shew that the counter suggestion was made that testimony was necessary to be taken—and a large mass of testimony— at San Francisco, which was not obtainable at Victoria. Upon that being made to appear, an amendment was inserted in the Convention providing, that if either Commissioner should be satisfied of it, a session should be had at San Francisco. Of course the primary object of the session at Victoria was to enable Her Majesty's Government to verify their claims against the United States Government. Now, I have not contended at the outset, nor at any time, that Counsel on the other side should put in all their claims at once; they can put them in separately. The Paris Tribunal had seen enough of ex parte affidavits, they had seen enough conflict of testimony, to establish beyond peradvent- ure that it was necessary—a necessity recognized in the negotiations between the high contracting parties—that Commissioners should see the witnesses and ' hear~~their testimony, and hear it tested by cross-examination. Where claims are so interwoven as the claims are here, where the amount to be recovered in one case rests upon testimony almost exactly like that of another case, it will not do for the United States Government to give notice at once of its defence, or of its attack upon the credibility of the witnesses produced to-day in one case and who may be produced tomorrow in another case. I say this because it appears from the terms of the Convention itself, and from the record of the Paris Tribunal, that there were doubts about the testimony of some of the witnesses. We are meeting here in the sealing country the testimony of hostile witnesses, and it is assumed on the part of the United States, and it may be fairly assumed from the record of the Paris Tribunal, that the testimony in support of these claims was not reliable. It may be assumed, then, that the United States Government will claim, as it did claim before the Paris Tribunal, and as it does claim on this record (I do not know that your Honors have seen it yet), that at least some of these claims are supported by- evidence that is unworthy of credit. I do not wish to be invidious by singling out any of them for special reference. Now, the Convention assumes that that may be so, and your Honors are here to see the witnesses, to listen to their oral examination and their cross-examination. It will not do with that class of witnesses, for the Counsel for the United States Government to announce beforehand what its attack upon the credibility of a particular witness, will be. It appears from the evidence before the Paris Tribunal that the same class of witnesses will appear in different cases, and in some instances the same individual will appear as a witness in different cases.- Suppose, for instance, in the case of the "Carolena" we attack a witness and close our line of attack in the examination, -then, if this rule suggested by my learned friend be adopted, that -witness is prepared for it in the next case in which he appears. Again is if possible that this Commission will com- ~- pel us to state what testimony' we want to'attack, and sc 10 notify in advance this class of witnesses of our purpose. I do not think so. The theory of the Convention is that the credibility of these witnesses shall be tested as it is ordinarily tested in courts of law. There is no difficulty in my learned friends, representing Her Majesty, putting in their entire case, for it is a mere assessment of damages in the ordinary way. It is true that the Tribunal must find in each: case, but after all, it is one claim to be made up of the appraisement of the different items included. Certainly the 10 Counsel for Her Majesty's Government must be ready at this time to verify their claims. Certainly the learned Counsel, whom I am glad to see has just been added to the distinguished Counsel representing Her Majesty, and who was the agent of Her Majesty's Government before the Paris Tribunal;—and to whose efforts largely the United States Government came out a loser—certainly he is in a position to know—if any man on the face of the earth is in a position to know, what the class of testimony is that should be produced, and who the individuals are to be produced before 20 this Tribunal in support of the claims of Her Majesty's Government. There is nothing unfair in directing the British Government, (having these facilities, and these Counsel who served before the Paris Tribunal) to tell us what their claim is and let us meet it. We submit that they must put in their chum by the oral testimony of their witnesses so far as may be; testimony that may be considered authentic and proper under the Convention. Then we should be permitted to meet it in our own way by equally authentic and proper testimony, attacking largely, bear in mind, these witnesses 3° summoned from the seal country. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Dickinson, is there any difficulty to be met by this rule proposed by you except the question of the evidence at San Francisco? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, your Honour. We do not desire to proceed with our case until they set their claims forth. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— 40 Would you claim that if the evidence was being taken on behalf of the schooner "Carolena." for instance, you would use the evidence taken in the case of the "Wanderer" to prejudice the claim of the schooner 'Carolena?" Mr. Dickinson:—No, sir, I do not think it should be so used, but the same witness might be called to sustain it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Then what advantage is there in the proposition that the British Government should first put in all their evidence on all the 5° claims? Mr. Dickinson:—May it please your Honor, the testimony is largely of the same class of men, who are in very intimate association, and if we disclose our line of defence or attack upon the witness in one case, it will be known and will be prepared for by this class of witnesses in all the subsequent oases. That is the point I have been endeavoring to make. The whole theory of the Convention and of the constitution of this Tribunal is to permit us to solve our doubt as to the 60 credibility of the witnesses. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you not think yon could manage that under the rule 5 winch yuii have agreed upon, that the testimony may be transferred from one case to the other?' Mr. Dickinson:—Not at all. Suppose we examine as to the case of the "Carolena," how do we know that our cross- examination ought to be the same for some other case in II IO 20 40 60 which the same witness may be called. They may transfer their direct testimony and we would not have cross-examined him as to his relation to the other vessel with regard to which he was examined. The case is full of difficulties if we do not have Counsel for Her Majesty close their testimony, their verification and assessment of damages before we go into our defence. They may transfer the testimony of a witness who has been examined as to one claim, and use it later on for another claim, but the cross-examination may not cover what has come out in a subsequent case. Mr. Peters:—You have agreed to that, though. Mr. Dickinson:—I agreed to these rules without rule 4. I took rule 4 then, and I take it now, to be radically wrong. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—If there were no rules at all, would not the Commission, as a matter of course, take up these claims one by one? Would not that be the ordinary course of a tribunal of justice? Mr. Dickinson:—We could only put in our case here in piecemeal. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Reserving, of course, the matter of testimony in San Francisco. Mr. Dickinson:—If your Honour made that rule, we could reserve all our testimony for San Francisco. The Commissioer on the part of the United States:—That would not follow at all, because the proceedings would be conducted in good faith. Mr. Dickinson:—If it would not follow, we would be obliged to dispense with the testimony we have in San Francisco. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not think that would follow either. Mr. Dickinson:—I ask your Honors to consider this question, as we deem it a matter of very great importance. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Tf Counsel on either side would assure the Commissioners that there js evidence of importance to be taken at San Francisco, I do hot believe either commissioner would ask to have the evidence disclosed. I merely ask these questions to get at a practical result. I would like to ask a question about one or two other of these rules. One of these rules provides for the signing of the protocol by the Commissioners and the Secretary. So far as my examination into the practice goes, the protocols have been signed by the agents or the Counsel of the two governments. Mr. Dickinson:—I think that at the the agents signed. Paris Tribunal only Sir Hibbert Tupper:—At Paris the agents of the two governments and the President of the Tribunal signed. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:--So that each government was represented on the protocol at every point. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Have you considered what time would be required for the carrying out of the second and third rules? Mr. Peters:—We are prepared to file the statement of claims almost immediately, except with regard to the case of the the "Wanderer," in which case there will be some little delay. It will all depend on what time my learned friend will require to file his replies. Mr. Dickinson:—It would be impossible or us to tell that until we see the claims. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I am requested by Judge Putnam to ask what is the necessity of that part of the rule which provides for a reply to the answer. Mr. Teters:—That is only "if necessary." My learned friend may answer somewhat specially with regard to the claim of ownership of some of the vessels by American citizen's. It might be found necessary to answer to that. The Commissioners then adjourned until 10 o'clock of the morning of Tuesdav, the 24th day of November. 20 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America- Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, November 24,1896. At ten o'clock in the forenoon the Commissioners took their seats. Thereupon the Commissioner on the part of Her Britannic Majesty said:—Mr. Dickinson, I suppose you have been fur- §1 nished with copies of the case in respect to some of the 30 , . claims. Mr. Dickinson:—Only five. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Are you able to say about the time that would be needed by you to make your answers? Mr Dickinson:—As to that, we are in the same position we were at the time of the adjournment yesterday. It will be necessary for us to see all the claims. We discovered 4° on the inspection of but five out of the large number that the nature of our pleadings must be different as to different ca ses. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Are you able to make any suggestion as to the time that you would think reasonable? Mr. Dickinson:—I should think, if all the claims are filed '■arly to-day, we can determine before the close of the day cq about what time we would require. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Mr. 1'eters, have you your claims ready? Mr. Peters:—As a matter of fact, although Mr. Dickinson did not know when he came here, we have already actually delivered 11 claims, 5 last night, and 6 this morning. The claims, I feel satisfied, will all be in the hands of Counsel opposite to-day. At all events, if all are not filed, there will be only one or two of the last ones remaining, and which in 60 the natural course of events cannot be reached for some considerable time yet. They are all in the hands of the printer and the proofs have been revised. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What is the status of the "Wanderer" claim? Mr. Peters:—I shall have to ask the Court to allow me a few days before 1 put in that claim. The owner will not be here for perhaps a week, but it is one of the very last eases. 13 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Will you, Mr. Dickinson, require to see the claim on behalf of the '•Wanderer" before you are able to determine as to the time you will need for reply? Mr. Dickinson:—No, your Honour. If there is only one claim withheld, we can make up our minds as to the kind of pleading necessary in respect to the others. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You to can probably inform us to-morrow morning how much time you require. Mr. Dickinson:—No doubt. If we had had the claims, we would have been able to inform your Honours this morning. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Of course, no doubt, the power to extend the time would be liberally, exercised. All that I was seeking to get was some general idea as to what you would think reasonable, apart from any 20 exceptional circumstance that might lead to an application for extension of time. Mr. Dickinson:—I had hoped, your Honour, that we would be able to prepare our pleadings within forty-eight hours and print them very quickly. I had hoped that, without seeing the statement of the claims on the other side. Mr. Peters:—It would be well if I were now to present formally to the Commission the 11 claims we have ready. 30 40 (The 11 claims referred to were filed and placed in the hands of the Secretary.) The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—We hope that at 3 o'clock this aternoon we may be able to announce the rules. Judge Putnam and myself feel how much we are indebted to the Counsel for the assistance they have given us in the preparation of the rules, and which otherwise would have involved considerable difficulty. Mr. Peters:—In regard to rules 16 and 17, which were slightly discussed yesterday' before the tribunal, since that time I have drafted them in a manner which I think meets the approval of Counsel on the other side, and I have also incorporated the suggestion made by one of the Commissioners yesterday. I beg to hand them in. The Commissioners then took a recess until 3 o'clock in the afternoon. sO 60 And at 3 o'clock in the afternoon of this day the Commissioners resumed their sitting. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I am requested by my associate to make the following statement on behalf of the Commissioners. In regard to rules 6 and 1; the Commissioners have adopted them mainly because presented to them by counsel; but' their adoption is tentative, and there is very great probability that, when the Commissioners apprehend the proceed ings better than they do now, they may be changed. With reference to rule 4 as redrafted, the Commissioners are not at all impressed with the necessity of it; but, in order to save the rights of all parties in any contingency, if seemed well to leave it in its present form, which follows pari passu the provisions of the Convention conferring powers, with reference to sessions at San Francisco. The Commissioners believe that, in connection with rule 5, it will pro- H 20 tect all substantial rights which were sought to be covered by the Counsel for the United States in the draft of rule 4 submitted by them;—at least, the rule as adopted goes as far as the Commissioners deem themselves able to go in view of the fundamental rules governing proceedings in determination of contested matters. The Commissioners desire to observe that they have no doubt that the counsel on either side will exhaust all the evidence available at Victoria with reference to every claim, io except such as may be strictly in rebuttal, before the determination of any application for an adjournment to San Francisco; and I feel justified in adding that, in the determination of any such application, the Commissioners will undoubtedly rely upon the expressed judgment of the counsel making the application as to its desirability. It is possible that a careful examination of rule 3 may disclose an inconsistency. If counsel find such, they are requested to notify the Commissioners before the rules are spread on the protocol. Rule 8, as presented to the Commissioners, seems unnecessary. The Commissioners have added to the last rule a provision for amendments and enlarging times. With the above exceptions, we believe the rules as passed down are the same as submitted by counsel. I will add that the Commissioners do not deem it necessary to have a separate notice ■ book. The Commissioners desire to get on with as few books as possible, and all notices 30 will go upon the docket. The time as named in the rules for doing various things is short, but the Commissioners have reserved the right to enlarge the time, and it is not intended to embarrass Counsel in any way at all. My associate desires me to ask Counsel whether any further matter is to be presented to the Commissioners. Mr. Dickinson:—The Counsel of the British Government and ourselves, have been considering the construction of the Convention as to the necessity of holding a session here, or 40 at San Francisco to received printed and oral arguments. If there is any doubt in the minds of the Commissioners as to their power to hold a session to receive the arguments, we are considering whether it might not be well for us, as Counsel for our respective governments to suggest that, there be an interchange of diplomatic notes construing the Convention so as to permit the Commissioners to meet at, say Montreal, for example, or some place in the East for the purpose solely of receiving arguments of Counsel, and of rendering the Award. We have not come to any conclusion 50 yet, but we are discussing it informally, and I desire, at the suggestion of the learned Counsel on the other side, to put it also before the minds of the Commissioners for consideration. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understood that Counsel were consideraing the matter, and of course we shall be very glad to get their views about it. In filling in these blanks, we thought we would, for the present, be on the safe side by stating that the rules were tentative. We thereore filled in the blanks as though every- 60 thing was to be completed here, making the periods very short and tentative as we have stated. My associate desires me to say, and I fully concur in it, that there certainly would be no objection to obtaining such construction of the Treaty. After a brief consultation between Judge King and myself, we do not feel that we are entirely clear about the matter, and of course all doubt should be avoided. I can only repeat that we would be extremely obliged to Counsel for a suggestion in that direction, and we shall be very glad to confer h to 20 30 15 about it informally at any time, as an informal conference would be perhaps more convenient than in open session. Mr. Peters:—I now present to the Commissioners, formally, claims No. 12 to No. 16, which I have already served upon Counsel on the other side and filed. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—What is the entire number of the claims? Mr. Peters:—The entire number is 26. Of these 25 are actually in the hands of the printer, and my learned friend opposite shall have them to-night. The "Wanderer" claim stands in the position as already stated. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The Commissioners deem it better to adjourn from day to day in view of possible contingencies. The Counsel need not attend unless they have something to bring before us. Mr. Dickinson:—The Counsel for the United States are quite confident they would be able to file their replies on Friday morning but for the interposition of the Thanksgiving holiday, which by a happy coincidence is held on both sides of the line on the same day this year. Mr. Peters:—In order to get the pleas completed by Saturday, if we have any special reply, I suggest that we be allowed to put it in in writing, and print it afterwards. Mr. Dickinson:—Counsel for the United States have no objection to that. There will be hardly any reason for reply, we think, except in regard to one or two matters in which we may ask to dismiss the claims that are presented. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The Commissioners would be glad to hear the judgment of Counsel with regard to the rules in their present form. The Commissioners may have made some mistake, and we do not regard the rules laid down by any means at all as laws of the Medes and Persians. 40 The session then adjourned until to-morrow half-past ten o'clock. morning, at Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the legislative Assembly, At Victoria, November, 25, 1896. 50 At 10:30 o'clock in the forenoon the Commissioners took their seats. The Commissioners authorized the Secretary to receive and file claims, with the same effect as though filed before the Commissioners when in open session. At 10:40 a.m. the Commissioners adjourned to again convene at 10:30 a.m., Friday, November 27, 1896. '< 6o Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, Between Great Britain and the United States of America Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, November 27, 1896. At half-past ten o'clock in the forenoon the Commissioners took their seats. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Gentle- i6 10 20 3° 40 5o men, is there anything to present to the Commissioners morning? Mr. Peters:—I simply wish to make a formal motion. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:— this -The learneM Counsel on the other side are not prest nt. Mr. Peters:—I know, my lord. I simply wish to make in open court a motion I made the other day with regard to Andrew B. Laing, and to ask for a formal order for his examination. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is agreed to, I understand. Mr. Peters:—Yes, Counsel on the other side have agreed to it. I beg to move as follows: In the matter of the Behring Sea Claims Convention, and in the matter of the Claim of Her Britannic Majesty arising out of the seizure of the schooner "W. P. Sayward," and in the matter of the personal Claim of Andrew B. Laing; upon- the application of Counsel for Her Britannic Majesty, and it appearing that Andrew B. Laing, a witness which said Counsel propose to examine in support of the Claims above mentioned, is too ill to attend the sittings of the Commissioners; upon hearing Counsel on behalf of the Government of the United States and by consent, It is ordered that Reuel Small, be and is hereby appointed a special examiner to take the evidence of the said Andrew B. Laing, de bene esse. And it is further ordered that the Counsel for Her Britannic Majesty shall be at liberty to examine the said witness on oath before the said examiner, who is hereby empowered to administer the oath to said witness, upon giving reasonably notice of the time and place of such examination to the Counsel for the Government of the United States. And it is further ordered that the" deposition of the said witness when taken and certified by said examiner shall be filed with the Secretary of the Commissioners; and that the Counsel for Her Britannic-Majesty may use the said deposition as evidence on the hearing of the above claim, saving all just exceptions. Dated at Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia, November 27th, 1896. Mr. Peters continued to say: As a matter of fact, although Counsel on the other side have not seen the exact form of this order, yet they have notice of it, and if they should raise any objection whatever I shall correct it according to their suggestion. The Commissioners entered the above order. The Commissioners - then adjourned the sitting until half- past ten o'clock to-morrow morning. Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, go At Victoria, November 28, 1896, At 10:30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. The Commissioner on the part of Her Britannic Majesty:—■ The Court is now open. Mr. Peters:—Yesterday, when your Honours met you requested copies of the Canadian statute. I have been able to find three copies, which I hand to the Commission. (Copies passed to the Secretary.) 17 Your Honours will note with regard to these, that there are some inked alterations in the schedule. The Convention was not quite in that shape when it went before the United States Senate. Those red ink alterations represent changes made in the Convention when it was before that Senate. They were not so printed in the schedule to the Canadian statute. There was an additional rule suggested by the High Commissioners with regard to the cross-examination of witnesses produced in a second case who had been examined in the prior case. The rule as suggested was as follows: "If either 10 party thus transfers any part of the testimony of any one of his own witnesses relating to any matter as to which such witness has not been cross-examined, such party shall a1 111 • ■ request of the other party simultaneously produce such witness for cross-examination in reference thereto, except so far as the Commissioners shall otherwise direct." We have suggested, and I have submitted the suggestion to my friend on the other side, an addition like this: "This rule shall not be applied if at the time of the examination of such witness the party producing him shall declare his intention of using the 20 evidence in subsequent cases, naming them, and indicating the portion of such evidence so intended to be used." So far as I understand that does not meet the exact approval of my learned friend, and may not probably meet the approval of the Commissioners. I think it would be sufficient if the matter be left to a very great extent In the hands of the Commissioners. It should not be necessary to produce a witness for further examination, but if the Commissioners, or either of them, thought that either side should produce a witness for further cross-examination, we should be perfectly willing 30 to leave them in that way. Our desire is, so far as possible, to complete the examination of a witness when he is put in the stand, as well as his cross-examination. If this idea suggested by us does not meet the approval of the Commissioners, we are willing to put it in any form that will meet their view of the case. 40 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is not your suggestion well covered by the closing words of the proposed addition to the rule? Mr. Dickinson:—"Except so far as the Commissioners shall otherwise direct." 50 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Supposing it appears to the Commissioners that upon the direct examination of a witness, either your witness or the witness of the United States, the counsel for you or the counsel for the United States pointed out clearly and distinctly to the counsel on the other side that it was intended to use that testimony in a subsequent case, and the counsel on the other side then refused and neglected to cross-examine, and it afterwards appeared that there was no good reason for not. cross-examing at that time, do you not ihink the Commissioners, under the closing words, would hold the matter in hand as vou suggest? 60 Mr. Peters:—We must produce a witness for second cross- examination if the matter is kept in the hands of the Commissioners; of course that is only fair. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The difficulty about any fixed rule seems to be that any such rule would require a good deal of examination of witnesses in the air, all of which might prove ultimately to be of no sort of nse. Then, in all the changes, delays and contingencies of litigation, it is impossible for counsel to foresee. When the fifth rule was passed on by the Commissioners I rather supposed that it had reference to some great leading ques- 10 20 3° 40 50 60 tions which it is not desired to prove over and over again— leading facts. When I came to read the rule again, I saw that it applied not only to leading facts, but to particular facts, and that is where the difficulty came m. : Mr. Peters:—The difficulty may not arise so much, perhaps, as we anticipate. However, we are entirely satisfied with anything, so long as the Commissioners have control. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—My associate makes this suggestion, to take the place of the rather rigid form of suggestion made by me, as follows: "Th-' Commissioners, or either of them, may require that such witness shall be produced for further cross-examination." Now. I think my associate and myself are agreed that counsel had better take this suggestion and go over the matter among themselves again, and perhaps they will be able to agree on something satisfactory. The Commissioner on the part of Her Britannic Majesty:— If evidence is tendered and it would seem that the cross-examining counsel did not have the facts sufficiently developed to have made an effective cross-examination when the evidence was first tendered, clearly he should have the right to have the witness produced so that cross-examination might be made full and adequate. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—All I can add is, that it seems to me the suggestion made by my co-Commissioner is altogether more flexible than anything we have had before. Mr. Dickinson:—I was about to s-ay that his Lordship quite apprehends what is in our minds, that the cross-examination of a witness may be necessary, and appear to be necessary, in connection with the other testimony in the case in which, it is introduced. And with this amendment we are entirely' satisfied. And shall the rule stand, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—Yes, that is quite satisfactory. The Commissioner on the part of the United States: not the counsel take the matter and put it in such f< they agree on. Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, your Honour. I would say High Commissioners that the counsel for the United wiil be quite within the rule, and have their answers within the three days, excluding the holiday. We to serve our friends with the copies to-day. There are two motions pending,' which have been file our friends have had notice of them, Claim No. 5 and No. 11. Will the Commissioners have the Secretary re motions, as I understand the practice to have been Paris Tribunal, or are they sufficiently familiar with —Will >rm as to the States all in expect d, and Claim ad the in the them? The Commissioner on the part of Her Britannic Majesty:— We have the papers before us. Mr. Dickinson:—In Claim No. 5, the first claim in order, upon the questions raised here, and upon the decision of those questions, may depend a precedent that will come up during the hearing in various forms. The questions we raise go to the fundamental law and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and we submit that they are extremely important in their results, for, if we are right in our contention that these cases are not within the terms of the Convention, it may follow, as your Honours will see,- that either Government may at least criticise any findings of the Tribunal based upon facts, or upon cases, not covered by the Convention. I will read Article 1 of the Convention, and then call your Honours attention to Tribunal. 19 ts bearing in relation to the action of the Paris 10 20 30 40 50 60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Will you kindly state the pith of the motion to dismiss? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, your Honour. This is a claim arising out of the* warning of the schooner "Black Diamond" from Behring Sea, on July 11, 1886. Your Honours will find in the schedule attached to the Convention the name of the "Black Diamond" appearing in this form. Your Honours will find the schedule of the Convention on the last page of the Appendix prepared by my learned friends. The name of the "Black Diamond" appears in the last set of claims, entitled "Appedix of Claims," claims submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Paris," in these words: "'Black Diamond' July 11, 1889, 35 miles, 'Rush,'" indicating that the "Black Diamond" was seized or warned on July 11, 1889, 35 miles from land by the United States revenue cutter "Rush." Your Honours will observe that it appears nowhere else, either in that schedule or in the schedule at the foot, entitled "Additional Claims." The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— There is a difference in the form of printing the Appendix of Claims. Mr. Dickinson:—We are not informed in what respect, your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—In many respects. The official copy furnished me by the State Department was printed in many respects differently from the schedule appearing upon the copy furnished the Court. Mr. Dickinson:—Not in respect to this one item. We had the official document, and the motion is based upon the official document But in this respect the copy attached to the Appendix of my learned friends is precisely like the official document. Claim No. 15, as to the same vessel, is for a warning on July 11th, 1889. Claim No. 5, as to which this motion is made, is for a warning made in July, 1886, three years before. Both are for warnings, and of course, as we shall submit, every warning, as has been treated in the proceedings of the Tribunal at Paris,—every warning has been treated in the Convention as a separate case, having its own independent claim for damages, and, of course, to be substantiated by independent proofs, entirely separate and distinct from the others. Now, unless the claim is in the schedule, or referred to in the Award under Article I. of the Convention, this claim cannot be considered by the Tribunal. And in that connection I first read Article I. of the Convention, which your Honours will find accurately quoted on page 13 of my learned friend's Index, as follows: "The High Contracting Parties agree that all claims on account of injuries sustained by persons in whose behalf Great Britain is entitled to claim compensation from the United States, and arising by virtue of the Treaty aforesaid, the Award and the finding of the said Tribunal of Arbitration, as also the additional claims specified in the 5th paragraph of the preamble hereto, shall be referred to two Commissioners, one of whom shall be appointed by the President of the United States, and the other by Her Britannic Majesty, and each of whom shall be learned in the law. Appended to this Convention is a list of the claims intended to be referred." Turning to the first qualification, that the claims must arise from the provisions of the Treaty aforesaid, on ref§§§. ing to Article VJU, on page 4 of the Appendix, we find the 20 lO '20 3° 40 50 60 provision of the Treaty which is the subject of the reference in Article I. of the Convention: "The High Contracting Parties having found themselves unable to agree upon a reference which shall include the question of the liability of each for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the other, or by its citizens, in connection with the claims presented and urged by it; and being solicitous that this subordinate question should not interrupt or longer delay the submission and determination of the main questions, do agree that either may submit to the arbitrators any question of fact involved in said claims and ask for a finding theron, the question of the liability of either Government upon the facts found to be the subject of further negotiation." The next qualification which a claim must have to come before this Tribunal is that it must arise by virtue of the award and findings of the said Tribunal of Arbitration. The award of the Tribunal of Arbitration, Article VIII., your Honours will find, so far as this matter is concerned, on page 9 of my friends'Appendix, as follows, namely: "And whereas the Government of Her Britannic Majesty did submit to the Tribunal of Arbitration, by Article V111. of the said Treaty, certain questions of fact involved in the claims referred to in the said Article VIII., and did also submit to us, the said Tribunal, a statement of the said facts, as follows, that is to say: "That the several searches and seizures" including both searches and seizures "whether of ships or goods, and the several arrests of masters and crews, respectively mentioned in Ihe schedule to the British case, pp. 1 to 60 inclusive, were made by the authority of the United States Government." Now, in the British case, from pages 1 to 60 inclusive, which includes the schedule of claims, the warning of the "Black Diamond" in the year 1886 nowhere appears. The warning of the "Black Diamond" in 1889 does appear, and your Honours will find a recapitulation of all the claims on the last page of the British case identified as within the pages 1 to 60 inclusive, of the British case in the award of the Arbitrators. "The questions as to the value of the said vessels or their contents, or either of them, and the question as to whether the vessels mentioned in the schedule to the British case, or any of them, were wholly or in part the actual property of citizens of the United States, have been withdrawn from and have not been considered by the Tribunal, it being understood that it is open to the United States to raise these q'ues.tions, or any of them, if they think fit, in any future negotiations as to the liability of the United States Government to pay the amounts mentioned in the schedule to the British case." "2. That the seizures aforesaid, with the exception of the "Pathfinder" seized at Neah Bay, were made in Behring Sea. at the distances from shore mentioned in the schedule annexed hereto marked (C)." This is clause 2. Clause 4 in further identification: "That the several orders mentioned in the schedule annexed hereto and marked (C), warning vessels to leave or not to enter Behring Sea, were made by public armed vessels of the Cnited States, the commanders of which had, at the several- times when they were given, like instructions as mentioned in finding 3, and that the vessels so warned were engaged in scaling or prosecuting voyages for that purpose, and that such action was adopted by the Government of the United States." "5. That the district courts of the United States in which any proceedings were had or taken for the purpose of condemning any vessel seized as mentioned in the schedule to the case of Great Britain, pp. 1 to 60 inclusive, had all the 21 IO 20 3° -40 60 jurisdiction and powers of courts of admiralty, including the prize jurisdiction, but that in each case the sentence pronounced by the court was based upon the grounds set forth in the libel." There was a schedule attached to the Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration, at page 11 of the Appendix of my friends, and we find there the "Black Diamond," July 11, 18S!t. :'.•"> miles, and seized by the steamer "Rush," or warned by that steamer. Now, then, it certainly is not a claim which is within the language of Article I. of this Convention, "one arising by the award and findings of the said Tribunal of Arbitration," as every claim which was before it, and as to which any fact was found, are carefully specified by the pages of the British case, by the recapitulation of the -British case?, and by the Tribunal of Arbitration itself; not only by that but by its own schedule. Now, is it an additional claim, if the court please, within the meaning of the article? It is not, because in the 5th paragraph of the article there is reference made to seizures or interference with but four ships, to wit: the "Wanderer," "Winnifred," "Henrietta," and the "Oscar and Hattie," embracing not merely the claims for seizure but claims for interference which this claim 5 is. The Commissioner on the part of Her Britannic Majesty:— Are two claims made in respect to the "Black Diamond," one a warning in 1886 and one a warning in 1889, or is there one claim, and a date given other than that named in the original? Mr. Dickinson:—There are two claims filed; there is this claim filed and claim 15 for the "Black Diamond," and both are for warnings. Now, the next means of identification as to what claims may be presented to this Tribunal, is at the close of Article I., as follows: "Appended to this Convention is a list of the claims intended to be referred." Mr. Peters:—It was not a warning; it was a seizure. •. Mr. Dickinson:—It is a warning, as a matter of fact, as you set it out here; you have not got the right one. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is where the difficulty arose that I called attention to. It is clearly a seizure as printed in the official copy which I have. It may or not be a seizure, that is not essential here now. . Mr. Dickinson:—That, as I shall show your Honours, is immaterial anyway. Claim 15, as here presented, is for a warning precisely like that of 1889. Now, it hardly needs an argument in presenting this motion to your Honours, to demonstrate that a case for damages and compensation for a seizure made in 1886, or for a warning made in 1886, is independent and distinct from the case of compensation for a warning made in 1889. Your Honours will observe, as sustaining our construction, that wherever there has been or were two cases or claims for compensation in respect of the same vessel before the Tribunal of Arbitration, the claims have been specified in other cases as distinct and separate claims, as, for instance, in the case of the "Triumph," which 3rour Honours will find in the Appendix of Claims, in the schedule of the British case, pages 1 to 60 inclusive, in its recapitulation, and in the schedule attached to the Award of the Tribunal of Paris. The "Triumph" is scheduled twice, first for a seizure and a warning on August 4th, 1887, and second for a warning or seizure on July 11th, 1889; and both were warnings as specified in the schedules, and in the testimony of the British case, pages 1 to 60 inclusive. The same thing occurs as to the "Pathfinder," scheduled in the British case before the Paris Tribunal, and recapitulated in the British case before the Paris Tribunal, ■_.«%*■ 3«fc.- 22 scheduled and defined in the Paris Tribunal in the Appendix of claims annexed, and scheduled in the Appendix of claims submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Paris to this Convention. The "Pathfinder" was seized or warned on July 27th, 1889, by the steamer "Rush," 50 miles from shore; and she was also seized in Neah Bay on March 27th, 1890; by the "Corwin." A third case is the case of the "Alfred Adams," which was warned or seized on August 10, 1887, by the "Rush," and then under the name of the "Lily." IO On August 6th, 1889, she was warned by the same United States revenue cutter, all as appearing by the same schedule. Now, may it please your Honours, I do not know that it is necessary to refer to the negotiations between the respective Governments, but if it shall be, it can be demonstrated that it was attempted to put in this claim, and to have it brought before this Convention when the Convention was negotiated, but that it was omitted, and neither, put in as an additional claim, nor in the case of claims submitted to the Paris Tribunal. The very title of this schedule shows, may it please the 20 Court, that only claims submitted to the Paris Tribunal were to be presented to this Convention, with the single exception, and that exception covers what are entitled "additional claims," and those additional claims are those referred to in preamble five, in which the independent warning of this ship, the "Black Diamond," does not appear. We submit, may it please your Honours, that it is essential that care should be. exercised upon the question of the claims presented and acted upon by the Tribunal, because of the effect possible upon the Award itself, and that this case is not one which can be 3 considered by this Tribunal. 4° 6o Mr. Peters:—May it please the_Commissioners, the objection taken by my learned friend to claim No. 5, with reference to the "Black Diamond," may be briefly stated to be that the "Black Diamqnd's" name does not appear twice on the schedule of this Convention, and that the year 1886 is not expressly stated in the schedule with regard to the claim of the "Black Diamond." He argues, thereore, that this case does not come under the terms of the Convention at all. That is to say, his contention is that the date is a material part of the statement in the schedule of the Convention. Our contention is the contrary. We submit that the date is merely stated in that schedule as a piece of information. The new claim of the "Black Diamond" we have for the sake of convenience placed in a separate claim and in order to keep the claims of 1886 as separate as possible from those of 1887. I submit that that in no way affects the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. We submit that the claim of 1886 in reality is merely to be looked at as an addition to the amount of compensation to be paid in respect to the schooner "Black Diamond." My learned friend has referred to the original Treaty, and also to the Convention to illustrate the point that he makes. His objection amounts to a statement that the claim of the "Black Diamond" does not come within the purview of the Convention at all. This is but a preliminary objection of my learned friend, but it goes to the merits of the case of the "Black Diamond, and if the application is successful away goes the whole claim. I propose, therefore, to briefly refer to the Treaty of 1892, and to see whether the conclusion that my learned friend attempts to draw from the wording of that Treaty and Convention can be sustained. What are the facts that existed in 1892, and what was the actual situation when that Treaty was made? At the time the Treaty was made there were several very important questions of principle existing between the United States Government and.the Government of Her Majesty. The main question was as to the special rights claimed by the United States in the Behring Sea. There was another question en- 10 20 4° so CO 23 tirely subsidiary, and that was, whether certain people, who had been injured by reason of the enforcement of the claims of the I'nited States, should receive compensation, and if so, how much? This was a question entirely subsidiary to the question of aright, and it was so dealt with in the Treaty ii self. If we look at the Treaty we find that it starts out in the first of the preamble with the statement: "Her Majesty the Qneen of the LTnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the I'nited States of America, being desirous to provide for an amicable settlement of the questions which have arisen between their respective Governments concerning the jurisdictional rights of the United States in tin- waters of Behring Sea, and concerning also the preservation of the fur seal in or habitually resorting to the said waters, have resolved to submit to arbitration' the questions involved, and to the end of concluding a convention for that purpose have appointed as their respective plenipotentiaries." There is no statement in that part of the Treaty that would bear out the contention of my learned friend opposite. Certain claims for compensation were made before this Treaty was agreed upon, and they were presented by the Government of Great Britain to the Government of the I'niteel States. Article 8 makes this statement: "The high contracting parties having found themselves unable to agree upon a reference which shall include the question of the liability of each for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the other, or by its citizens, in connection with the claims presented and urged by it: and being solicitous that this subordinate question should not interrupt or longer delay the submission and determination of the main questions, do agree that either may submit to the arbitrators any question of fact involved in said claims, and ask for a finding thereon, the question of the liability of either Government upon the facts found to be the subject of further negotiation." Therefore the very statement in the Treaty itself is that claims which already had been made and which would be made, should not then be adjudicated, and'the-Paris Tribunal passed no judgment which would affect claims made or thereafter to be made. Article VIII. gives the Commissioners certain duties to discharge with regard to these claims. It is perfectly apparent thai when the Paris Tribunal was sitting it could only give findings of fact in regard to claims which had already been presented, and in regard to these claims what doe-s it say? It says that either party may present findings of fact, and that these findings of fact shall be adjudicated upon by the Tribunal. After thai it provides that these claims should be relegated to future negotiations between the two Governments; that was the way that the Award was made. < 'ertain claims were presented to that Tribunal and findings of fact were given. After the Award had been made, and in subsequent negotiations these claimants had special advantage, they had the benefit of the findings of facts which had been delivered, and they cculd avail themselves of ilum. It needs no argument to show that it was quite open for Ihe Governments of either side afterwards, when they entered into the negotiations, to take into e:onsideration any claims which they «aw fit. There was a statemenf of fact and an Award was made, and a f 1 <-r that Award was made certain negotiations did take place. In the course of these negotiations claims were put in by the : Governme-nt of Great Britain to the Government of the TVted State's, the particulars of the 1 lainis wen- put in on the 7th of June, 1894. in the letter of Sir Julian I'auncefote addressed to Mr. Gresham. The official correspondence in the matter, which of course must be considered as being before the Tribunal, can easily be referred to. On the 7th of .lunc. 189*4, Sir Julian Pauncefote wrote to Mr. Gresham a lettePili 24 IO 20 40 5° 60 which he placed a complete list of the claims intended to be presented as far as then known, and in that schedule the claim of the "Black Diamond" for 1886 was distinctly set forth. Mr. Dickinson:— That was before the Convention, if I understand aright. > Mr. Peters:—Oh, yes, before the signing of this Conven- iiem. I call your Honours attention to the exact form in which that claim was put in. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—What are you reading from? Mr. Peters:—I am reading from the executive" document presented to the House of Representatives of the United States: "Senate Ex. Doc. No. 67." That schedule as set forth was then supposed to be a complete statement of all the claims to be presented. Many of them had been presented pi-eviously to that. It begins with the "Carolena," the. first case, and goes all through the whole of them. Now, that was the way the claim was put in "Extra for 'Black Diamond,' 188(C $7,500," that was the entry of the claim, and | call your Honours special attention to it. That claim was presented by Sir Julian Pauncefote, to Mr. Gresham for the purpose of these negotiations, and with a view, at the time, of bringing it before this Concention. Now let me bring this further fact to the attention, of the Commissioners: I think I am correct in saying that there never was any objection raised (at all events so far as appears from the correspondence) on the part of the United States Government to the insertion of the claim of the "Black Diamond" in that list, nor was there any suggestion on the part of the United States that it was improper or wrong that that claim should be pressed. This claim was presented in a most formal manner by the representative of Her Britannic Majesty to the Government of the United States, and no objection was raised by -the latter Government to it. Now, then, as a matter of fact, when the Convention was actually drawn we find that the only claim in regard to the "Black Diamond" is a claim which my learned friend contends must be confined to the year 1889!! Why was the claim of the "Black Diamond" for 1886 apparently struck out? What was the reason for that? My answer is, and I claim it to be the correct answer, that the year was a matter looked upon as entirely immaterial. My learned friend seems to argue that it must have been struck out for the reason that objection was raised to it. I do not believe that that was at all the case. It is a matter of history, although so far as either party are concerned neither party are bound by the negotiations or statements made during the negotiations, that prior to this convention a lump sum had been agreed on . between the parties as to the amount that should be paid in these matters. 1 think that the fact that a lump sum was agreed on has nothing to do with the amount that should be given here, and 1 think both of us will agree on that point. But, as a mat- Ut e>f fact, it is to be noted that when that lump sum was under consieleration this claim of the " Black Diamond" was ^one of the claims actually unsettled, and I think it was practically agreed that it should be settled by that lump sura set- llcinint. You therefore have the fact that this claim was put bedore the1 American Government without objection. Now, ili'-n, I have myself under my hand a statement which leads me not only to think, but to be almost absolutely certain, 1 hat the view taken by Sir Julian Pauncefote, and also if he has understood the Secretary of State, Mr. Olney, correctly. Mr. Olney's view was that the claim of the "Blae-k Diamond" was left out of the Convention because both parties thought 25 IO 20 40 60 that the extra claim for 1886 did not affect the claim itself, but was simply an additional amount. I have a si a lenient which as a matter of fact, in order to deal fairly with my learned friend on the other side, I gave him a copy of, so that my learned friend could not think that I wished to make any statement as to which I did not let him know, I have the statement that when these conventions were passing between the two Governments, Sir -Julian Pauncefote sent a memorandum to his own Government stating his view, and giving a reason why the "Black Diamond" was left out. Now, whether that statement is correct or not is a matter which probably can be easily ascertained by my learned friend. The statement was as follows, and is in a memorandum with regard to draft "C." one of the many drafts with regard to this Convention,' and this is Sir Julian Pauncefote's remark upon the apparent omission of the-' "Black Diamond." He says the only change is in the last paragraph of the last recital relating to the supplementary claims is, "The case of the 'Black Diamond' has been omitted at the suggestion of the Canadian delegates, as it already appears in the original list of claims, and the supplemental claim of the owner was only touching the amount of compensation." This, of course, is a memorandum, written as a matter of fact, long before this Convention was arrived at, and it further goes on to say, and of this I have not a copy here—my learned friend has it in a memorandum I sent him—that it was thoroughly understood between Mr. Olney and Sir Julian Pauncefote that, so far as these claims were concerned, the parties were at liberty to prove any amount of compensation that they were able to prove, or words to that effect, as to each claim. I only point this out in further proof of the statement and claim that I make that the year 1889 was simply a fact stated with relation to the ship, that she was seized" in that year, and does not at all prevent us from proving that she was also seized in the year 1886, or warned in that year. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—She was not warned on the high seas, was she? Mr. Peters:—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Your petition does not so say. Mr. Peters:—I think so. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not see it there. Mr. Peters:—Oh, she was warned by the collector of customs. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—She was not warned on the high seas. Mr. Peters:—Warned on the coast of Alaska. However, I do not propose to go into the facts of the matter. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The facts may account for the case being left off the memorandum. Mr. Peters:—No, the correspondence shows why this claim was put in late, and if I can refer you to the correspondence on that point it shows the reason why it was put in late. I am reading now from the official correspondence published by Great Britain on the matter. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Won't vou kindly read again what was said by Sir Julian Pauncefote? Mr. Peters:—He says the only change is in the last para- 26 IO 20 30 40 so 60 graph of the last recital relating to the supplementary claims: "The case of the 'Black Diamond' has been omitted at the suggestion of the Canadian delegates, as it already appears in the original list of claims and the supplemental claim of the owner was only touching the amount of compensation. "That was his view of it. Of course I understand that it is open to my learned friend to show that his view was not the view thoroughly understood by both parties. I am only putting this forward to show that that was the idea of Sir Julian Pauncefote at the time, in support of the argument that I wish to present to the Tribunal that the statement of the date is merely a statement of one fact connected with the "Black Diamond" and leaves us open to prove any other fact which may be necessary. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Mr. Peters, the schedule, so far as it relates to the "Black Diamond," varies from that in Claim 5, in two points, not only in regard to the date, but in regard to the agency through which the authority of the United States Government was exercised. In the Convention it is stated that the United States Govern-, ment acted through the "Rush" in warning her off or seizing her. Mr. Peters:—Suppose that the Convention stated that the "Black Diamond" was seized by the revenue cutter "Rush,". and it turned out, as a matter of fact, that she was seized by the revenue cutter "Corwin," would it be argued for a single moment that that claim was excluded because we could not prove that the seizure had been made by the vessel specifically mentioned? That seems to me to support my contention. I would like to read the report. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—If you are seeking to identify a claim and find that there are two particulars in which the identification is not complete, it is of course stronger than if you find there is only one. Mr. Peters:—Yres, but I am going to refer particularly now to the schedule which I have not yet come to to show to the court that even in the schedule itself, in the findings of fact itself, the dates are looked upon as immaterial; that I will come to in a moment; but 1 want to read first the way in which this "Black Diamond" case of 1886 first came before the notice of the American Government and also the British Government. I am now reading from a British publication, but it is also in the executive document referred to a moment ago under this heading; it is in the same letter from Mr. Gresham that I have already referred to, and is as follows: "BLACK DIAMOND." "Additional claim submitted by the master. Mr. Henry Paxton, for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of the above schooner having been ordered out of Behring Sea in 1886, by the United States authorities. This claim was sent in too late for insertion in the general list of British claimants. In view of the length of time that had elapsed since the occurrence of the action complained of, Her Majesty's Government deemed it advisable to cause an inquiry to be made as to the reason for the delay in presenting the claim. The reason given was that at the time of the seizure of the vessel, the co-owners, who were three in number, were doubtful as to how far an appeal to the I'nited States Government for redress would be e>nte*rtained. In the following year one of the owners was lost at sea, and another left the country, and it was only after the publication of the Award that the surviving owner consulted his solici- IO 40 tor and was informed that he had a good and equitable claim for compensation. The claim was then drawn up and presented at once. Her Majesty's Government also ascertained from the solicitors in question that the fact of the "Black Diamond" being boarded by the revenue officers of the United States and ordered out of Behring Sea in 1886 is entered in the records of the custom house at Ounalaska, and that due protest was made by the master of the vessel upon the arrival of the schooner at Victoria. Under the circumstances Her Majesty's Government considered that the reasons of the delay were reasonable, and gave instructions that the claim should be presented to the United States Government, together with other similar claims." I merely point out this and bring it to the notice of the Commission to show that this claim was in the most formal manner presented to the Government of the United States, and that the presentation of that claim was never in any way objected to, so far as the correspondence shows, and that the only, objection that can be made to it is, that it does not appear in the schedule of 1886, and the view taken by the ambassador for the English Government was that the claim of 1886 was not to be looked on as altogether a separate and distinct claim, but as giving a right to further compensation in respect to the "Black Diamond." Now, having made these remarks as to the state of the facts, let us refer to the actual Convention that we have before us, and see whether my learned friend can altogether lay down the hard and fast rule he has laid down. I will refer first to the finding of fact on page 11, and what is that finding of fact: "The following table shows," now mark exactly what it does show, "the names of the British sealing vessels seized or warned by United States revenue cruisers, 1886-1890, and the approximate distance from land when seized.' The distances assigned in the cases of the "Carolena," "Thornton," and "Onward," are on the authority of the United States naval commander "so and so," "the distance assigned" in the other cases are so and so. Now, if your Honours will remark that there was a clear distinction as to the thing, the names of the vessels seized between certain dates that is all they considered material, and the distance from land at which the seizures or warning took place. If it had been intended that the claims should depend on the statements of the dates, you would have found in that heading of "Annex C" the further statement that they found not only their names and the places where they were seized, but also the dates on which they were seized. SO 60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It appears, Mr. Peters, that in this statement, two vessels' names appear twice. Mr. Peters:—I am coming to that in a moment. My learned friend has inadvertently fallen into an error in regard to some of those ships; he has, for instance, taken a ship twice, and he says the "Triumph" was seized in 1887, and also was seized in 1889; my learned friend is in error there, I know unwittingly, but as a matter of fact, the "Triumph" of 1887 and the "Triumph" of 1889 were two distinct vessels with different owners. Mr. Dickinson:—How about the "Pathfii mer?' Mr. Peters:—The "Pathfinder," as a matter of fact, is stated twice, and as a matter of fact, the second claim with regard to the "Pathfinder" is a seizure of clearly a separate and distinct nature; it is not the same class of a seizure*?!!! ■ was not made on the high seas. Ii is a different class of 28 IO 20 30 40 5° 60 claims from any claims mentioned before. He mentions again that the "Alfred Adams" and the "Lily" appear twice. Yet, it appears, I believe that the "Alfred Adams" afterwards changed her name and became the "Lily," but I do not imagine that the people who had the making of the Treaty had any knowledge of that fact. She was owned as a matter of fact, by different parties at the time, and, so fai1 as known to the British Government, was an entirely different ship, and it would never strike one at first thought that the ship which appeaivd in 1887 as the "Alfred Adams" should appear in 1889 as the "Lily." It is a fact probably not known to either party, so that my learned friend's argument as to the particularity with which the schedule has been drawn out fails when we find that in the first case there were two "Triumphs," and in the "Pathfinder" case the seizure made in 1S90 was a different class of seizure altogether, and when we find that the other is a simple change of name, as to which no person would be supposed to look, I call attention to the fact that the things they state they find are the names of the vessels and nothing more. I might further remark on the question as to the particularity with reference't > which these claims appear to have been mentioned in the . schedule, that whether it was right to do so or wrong with reghrd to the case of the "Pathfinder" before the Paris Tribunal, separate cases for the "Pathfinder" had been put in, and therefore they found the schedule and took it as it was, and the same with regard to the other cases mentioned, and the same with regard to the "Triumph;" of course they had to be separate, the claims were put in by separate parties who had separate interests, and they could not by any possibility all be put in one. Now, if you will refer to the article of the Convention, under which we are sitting, then see what is supposed to be referred: "The high contracting parties agree that all claims," the words used are "all claims," "on account of injuries sus# tained by persons in whose behalf Great Britain is entitled to e-laim compensation from the United States and arising by virtue of the treaty aforesaid, the award and findings of the said Tribunal of Arbitration, as- also the additional claims specified in the 5th paragraph of the preamble hereto, shall be referred to two Commissioners, one of whom shall be appointed by the President of the United States, and the other by Her Britannic Majesty; and each of whom shall be learned in the law. Appended to this Convention is a list of the claims intended to be referred." The starting idea of that clause was that all claims should be referred. Now, mylearned friend says that that is to be limited to a very great extent and that it is to be only the claims referred to in the schedule. I say that when you come to that schedule you ought to give it the broadest possible construction to carry out the meaning of the parties. You will find, when you get to#that schedule, although it purported to be something like a copy of the findings of fact of the Paris Tribunal, it is not a complete copy or anything like it. It is headed "Appendix of Claims submitted to the Tribunal of arbitration at Paris." It states the names of vessels, dates of seizure, approximate distances and the vessels that seized them; it omits a very important part, the amounts are not in any way stated. Of course the claims that were submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration of Paris included not only those statements, but also the statement of the amounts. Now, when this says, "Appendix of Claims, Claims submitted to the Tribunal at Paris," that is merely a heading; it is not intended to control what follows, because as a matter of fact, it is not a statement of claims submitted to- the Tribunal at Paris. It does not state the amount. What it was intended to be was a copy of the findings of fact, that is all it was intended to be. it is not a statement of claims, and I submit 20 IO 20 30 40 SO 6® that the intention of the parties was that this was simply looked upon as a finding of fact. The material poijt to be stated is the name of the ship, and the fact that she was seized; a mistake in the name of the vessel that seized her would not affect the right of this Tribunal to hear the case. Suppose it appears now before this Tribunal that, as a matter of fact, the dates of seizure are wrong, but the name of the vessel was grven, and it also appeared that the claim had been made, woulel this Tribunal seriously consider the fact whether they had jurisdiction to hear the case because in the schedule of the Convention there had been a mistake or a total omission of the date, if the real facts connected with the case, the name of the case, the fact of the seizure, and the name of the vessel which had seized her, were actually stated and brought before the Convention. Now, if you take the words of the preamble to the Convention, you will also find that, "Whereas, in view of the said findings of fact, and of the decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration concerning the jurisdictional rights of the United States in Behring Sea, and the right of protection of property of the United States in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the United States and Behring Sea, the Government of the United States is desirous that in so far as its liability is not fixed and determined by the findings of fact and the decision of said Tribunal of Arbitration, the question of such liability should be definitely and fully settled and determined, and compensation made, for any injuries for which, in the contemplation of the Treaty aforesaid, and the Award and findings of the Tribunal of Arbitration compensation may be due to Great Britain from the United States. "And, whereas, it is claimed by Great Britain, though not admitted by the United States, that prior to the said Award certain other claims against t he United States accrued in favor of Great Britain on account of seizures of, or interference with, the following named British sealing vessels." The only thing there considered material to state was the name, and they were carried into the schedule as additional names with the bald information, "Additional Claims, "Wanderer," "Winnifred," "Henrietta," "Oscar and Hatrie." All they considered necessary in the body of the Convention was to state: "The following named British sealing ves- • sels," and when they came to the schedule they simply considered the fact, which if incorrectly stated, would not take away this court's jurisdiction. Suppose in the case of the "Winnifred," it turned out that the interference took place in • 1S92, instead of 1891, it being clearly before the minds of the two governments when they agreed to that additional ■ claim, that the case of the "Winnifred" should be considered. Would it be argued that it took away the jurisdiction of this Tribunal? Would not they construe that schedule as simply giving, or attempting to give certain information in regard to the claims to be stated, and* once they found in the schedule there was a clear statement that the case of such and such a vessel was before the Tribunal, that is all they had to consider. Now, the only authority I find necessary to bring before this Tribunal is the case of Hauenstein v. Lynham, reported in 100 United States Supreme Court Reports, and the remark that I am reading is from page 487, and is as follows: "Where a treaty admits of two constructions, one restrictive as to the rights thai may be claimed under it. and the other liberal, the- la iter is to be preferred." This cites Shanks v. Dupont. 3 Peters, 242, and the Court adds; "Such is the settled rule in this Court." Now, then, applying that rule to the question we have two constructions that I fairly contend, may be put on this schedule. First, the strict construction, that because the year 1886 is not-specially mentioned in the schedule, for that rea- 30 io 20 40 son that claim should be excluded. That, I say, is the narrow construction. The main thing to be stated in the schedule is. the name of the vessel, the dates mentioned in the schedule and the other facts are merely information for the use of the Convention; the name of the vessel is the main thing and the other part of it is merely information. The only difference between the claim- of 1889 and that of 1886, so far as the "Black Diamond" is concerned, is this: The claim made for 1889 comes before t his Tribunal in a little better position. In that we have the benefit of the finding of facts with reference to that seizure for 1889. The claim for 1886 comes before you without that benefit, but with the benefit of all the questions of law decided by the Paris Tribunal, and therefore I leave the matter with your Honours simply upon the ground that giving this Treaty what it ought to have, a broad construction, the main thing to be given is the name of the vessel; when that is named it is really before this Convention. There is stated in the Convention the following: "Personal Claims, 1886." Now, then, what is the claim with regard to the "Black Diamond" in 1886? True, it is a claim that arises out of certain acts done, certain words spoken, or certain warnings given to the Master of the "Black Diamond," and would I not be right in claiming that the claim of the "Black Diamond" is properly a personal claim, and therefore distinctly mentioned in the Convention under "Personal Claims, 1886"? True, in making out the claim we put in, for the sake of convenience, that this is one arising out of certain acts done to the "Black Diamond"; but the effect is that the damage which arose by reason of the warning out of the "Black Diamond in 1886, is in every respect a personal claim—which can be made by a person, and therefore is included even to the strict construction. I say that this fully comes within the terms of the Convention. I do not think it will be necessary for me to detain the Commissioners any longer upon this point. The matter, as has already been stated, is important with regard to this particular claim, because the granting of this motion means that this claim, if it be a meritorious .one, is entirely withdrawn from the Convention and the right practically gone forever, because I assume, and I think I am right in doing so, that this is the last time for the presentation of any claim that has heretofore arisen. Now, these claims must be either dismissed or allowed; and the ruling out of a claim properly presented to the Commission really means that that claim, whether meritorious or not, is ruled out once and forever. I feel satisfied therefore that the Commissioners will, so far as they can, and so far as their judgment will allow them, be astute to see that no claim is thrown out, or not allowed to be heard before this Tribunal, which, upon a fair, broad and liberal construction of the Convention may be considered to be within the terms thereof. 60 Mr. Dickinson:—A few brief words in reply, if your Honours please: As to the last proposition of my friend, that this claim of the "Black Diamond" for 1886, may be embraced in the item "Personal Claims." in the schedule attached to the Convention. I have but this to say: that the term "personal claiSs" named in the schedule under the title of "Claims submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Paris," has a signification of its own within the interpretation and meaning of the proceedings of the Paris Tribunal. These claims are scheduled as the personal claims of persons for arrest, imprisonment or detention, and your Honours will find them so scheduled always, and so referred to in the British case, pp. 1 to 60 inclusive, and so rellrred to by the Tribunal of Arbitration. So much for that. My friend is not within the decision of the Award of the a to 20 30 40 SO 6® 3i Paris Tribunal when he says that time is immaterial. The Paris Tribunal, may it please your Honours, has dignified it in this case by finding it as one of the facts necessary to be found in its deliberations, and under its powers. Your Honours are sitting here, taking from the Paris Tribunal in respect of these matters before you, what has been through the processes of that Tribunal, and as to which that Tribunal has done something, or your Honours would not be sitting here. The duty was imposed upon the Tribunal that satin Paris to find certain facts as to certain claims. There is no doubt about that, and your Honours have imposed upon you the duty to take* up the'findings of fact of the Paris Tribunal, go on and find another question, to wit. the liability of the United States upon those findings of fact, and, if liable, to assess the damages. Now, let me ask your Honours with reference to the seizure of the' "Black Diamond" in 1889, under a warning given by the collector of customs: Can your Honours take the Award of the Tribunal of Arbitration, and find that any one of these facts, the finding of which was the duty imposed upon the Paris Tribunal, was found as to the seizure or warning of the "Black Diamond" in 1886? Of course your Honours cannot so find: Y'our Honours cannot find these things over again, or find against the findings of the Paris Tribunal, or take up the questions found by the Paris Tribunal. Here are the findings of fact: 1. For the purposes of your Honours they find these facts to be true: That the searches and seizures, and so forth, were made by the authority of the United States, Government. Can your Honours find that that fact was found by the Paris Tribunal on the seizure, or on the warning of the "Black Diamond" in 1886? The "Black Diamond" was not before it, from page 1 to 60, inclusive, my friends admit they did not put the "Black Diamond." and the seizure of 1886, before the Tribunal. Are your Honours in this special case, then, to go on and find what it is not provided by the Convention that you can find—that the seizure was by the authority of the United States? That is not within the province of this Tribunal to find; that has already been found; and your Honours are the high sequel to the Paris Tribunal in this, that what if did not find your Honours are to find, and nothing else. That is the first finding. Can your Honours say that the Paris Tribunal found that the "Black Diamond" was seized by the authority of the United States? They found nothing at all about it; and the fact appears on their own claim that the warning was given not by the authority of the United States, but by an officer who had no authority to give any warning whatever. Then, as to No. 2, another finding of fact^let me repeat that, before proceeding with any claim, your Honours must look to the Paris Tribunal, as to the finding of certain facts as to that claim, before your Honours can proceed, except as to the ad- eiitional claims which are not involved here on this point. As to this second finding, can your Honours find that the "Black Diamond" in 1886 was seized in Behring Sea. though that is a seizure, and probably that would not be material to find that this warning was made in Behring Sea, with the other searches and seizures of vessels. The third finding is that the said several searches and seizures of vessels, "were made by public armed vessels of the United States, the commanders of which had. at the several times when they were made, from the executive department of the United States, instructions, a copy of which is annexed hereto, marked (A).'' The principle involved is whether you may take up a case as to which there was no finding of fact by the Paris Tribunal—any other case except additional claims. The third finding was that the vessel was seized by the commander, who had, at the several times when the seizures were made, instructions from the executive de- in finding 3, and that the vessels so warned were engaged in sealing or pre>secuting voyages for that purpose, and that such action was adopted by the Government of the United States." Can you look into the Award of the Paris Tribunal and find that these facts are found, and conclusively found, by the Tribunal before you can proceed with the assessment of damages for the "Black Diamond" in 1886? Did they find that a vessel warned her, and that the vessel was armed that warned her? Did they find that the commander of the vessel had instructions in words and figures, as set out in the schedule? Can your Honours find that as to the "Black Diamond?" Because it is found as to everything that the Paris Tribunal sent to this High Commission. If each is not found as to any ship, the question of the seizure or warning of that ship, cannot come before the High Commissioners. And your Honours must find, lastly, that the seizure was adopted by the Government of the United States—the warning was adopted by the Government of the United States. Y'our Honours cannot find that; that is not within your Honours' duty or powers to find as to any ship warned in 1886; that is a matter of fact, and that fact must come down to you as settled by the Paris Tribunal as to any ship which you can consider. Certainly you cannot find that the "Black ' Diamond" was within the first schedule of claims presented to the Arbitration, because, as to those, certain facts are found as to which your Honours are bound. It may have been an additional claim, because it comes within the terms of the preamble of a warning or seizure made before the Award, and this warning and seizure was made before the Award. Now, my friend has referred to certain negotiations be- ' tween the parties. Of course, if there is any doubt about construction, the kind of construction which my friend raises might be used, that we might enter into the negotiations that were had. but the ordinary rule would be, where the meaning is perfectly clear by the schedule itself, and there is no question of names (and this applies to the additional claim) that, the negotiations could not be read to import to the schedule an independent, distinct and plain new name. I think it fflSt appear conclusively to your Honours that this "Black .Diamond" seizure in 1886, being a separate and independent seizure, for which there is a separate and independent claim for compensation, cannot come within the first part of the schedule as submitted to the Paris Tribunal, because there are no findings of fact here from the Paris Tribunal for your Honours to proceed from. In ajKletter from His Excellency, the British ambassador, to Mr. Gresham, I find, as to what should go into additional claims, a number of claims that are not in. The correspondence gives a number of claims which do not appear in the Convention. For instance, in that let- ler. it appears that the "Henrietta," which is now named as an additional claimant, was mentioned, but the "Winnifred," 33 to 20 30 the "Oscar and Hattie," and the "Wanderer," which are in the Convention of additional claims, did not appear in that first proposition from Sir Julian Pauncefote to Mr. Gresham. It appeared later in the negotiations, and in the correspondence back and forth. The "Black Diamond" was mentioned in ihe correspondence, and other claims were mentioned; and finally, excluding all others, they agreed upon the "Henrietta," the "Wanderer." the "Oscar'and Hattie," and the "Winnifred." The "Black Diamond" was not put in as an extra claim because they undertook to heed a warning from the collector of a port, which was not in the nature of a warning given by an armed vessel. Suppose the collector of the port of San Francisco, on the high seas or any where else it pleases him, tells a British vessel that it cannot fish 40 miles off the coast, is the Government of the I'nited States to pay damages if that vessel heeds the warning? I think not. It is quite plain that the "Black Diamond" was not intended to be included as she is not named in the schedule of additional claims, nor in the preamble, although she would come within fhe class described within the preamble of vessels warned or seized prior to the Award of the Paris Tribunal. My learned friend says that the position is not material, but your Honours will see that the Paris Tribunal not only confined the time but they dignified it by making it material. They queried as to where the position of the "Triumph" was when warned, and laid down that they could not state her position. I submit that this "Black Diamond" claim for 1886 does not come here as a claim submitted before the Paris Tribunal, as to which the' findings of fae-t are stated, and it is not included in the additional claims and although it appears negotiations were had as regards to it it was excluded. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Have you anything to say as regards Claim No. 11, Mr. Dickinson? 5o Mr. Dickinson:—Yres, your Honour, I will present my re- 40 marks with regard to it. It appears in this case that a claim for personal damages is added in respect of James Gaudin. Now, the finding- of the Paris Tribunal carefully limits the claims for damages in cases of seizures to the several arrests mentioned in the schedule of the British cass, which are set out from page 1 to page 60 inclusive. I read from the find ing of fact of the Paris Tribunal, to be found at page 9 of the Appendix prepared by my learned friend. Then they proceed to find the facts necessary to be founr under the duty imposed on them with respect to the liability of the United States, as they do in the case of the seizure of vessels. In the British case, from pages 1 to 60 inclusive, which is identified by No. 1 of the findings of fact by the Paris Tribunal, your Honours will find the personal claims are always called "personal claims," and scheduled and recapitulated together. Then we also find the personal claims scheduled at page 14 of the present Convention. This same term, "personal claims," before the Paris Tribunal, had been applied to the claims for arrests in 1886, scheduled by themselves, and also in 1887, scheduled by themselves. Now in Article I. of the findings of fact the claim of James Gaudin does not appear. There is no finding of fact as to it. and it is not sent down here was a finding of fact. Heretoore the personal claims, from the beginning of the I'aris Tribunal up to the filing of these separate cases by my learned friend, had always been presented together as separate claims, but he has explained to me that for the sake of convenience land I approve of it) he has attached to each claim for ihe ship ihe personal claim for damages of the men arrested on the ship. I quite agree 3 60 lO 3° 34 that for the purpose of taking testimony that was far better, because the case can be closed as to the personal claim for damages at the time that the case of the warning or seizure of the ship is closed. This claim, 1 repeat, is not one of the personal claims scheduled in the Convention. It is not a case which comes down here from the Paris Tribunal. It is not identified as a claim before the Paris Tribunal as to which there is any finding of facts by that Tribunal. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—As I understand you, this case as brought in is not mentioned in the British case from pages 1 to 60 inclusive. Mr. Dickinson:—It is not there, sir, and as to it, therefore, there is no finding of the Paris Tribunal. Mr. Beique:—At the suggestion of my learned friend, Mr. Peters, I will answer the argument made by my learned adversary in connection with this particular motion. If I understand his contention aright, the motion rests on the as- 20 sumption that your Honours have no power to find any facts that were not found by the Tribunal of Paris. If I read correctly the terms of the Convention I think it will be very easy to show that this contention cannot be sustained. At page 12 we find it there recited in the preamble of the Behring Sea Claims Convention: "Whereas, by a Treaty between Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and the United States of America, signed at Washington on February 29th, 1892, the questions which had arisen between their respective Governments, concerning the jurisdiction of rights of the United States in the waters of the Behring Sea, and concerning also the preservation of the fur seal in, or habitually resorting thereto, the said sea, and the rights of the citizens and sujects of either country, as regards the taking of fur seal in, or habitually resorting to, the said waters, were submitted to a Tribunal of Arbitration as therein constituted." That is the only thing that was submitted to this Tribunal. Then take the second paragraph; it says: "And whereas the agent of Great Britain did, in accordance with the provisions of the said Article VIII., submit to the Tribunal of Arbitration certain findings of fact, which were agreed to as proved by the agent of the United States, and the arbitrators did unanimously find the facts so set forth to be true, as appears by the Award of the Tribunal rendered on the 15th day of August, 1893. And whereas in view of the said findings of fact, and of the decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration concerning the jurisdictional rights of the United States in Behring Sea, and 5° the rights of protection, or property of the United States in the fur seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring Sea, the Government of the United States is desirous that, in se> far as its liability is not already fixed and determined by the findings of fact and the decision of said Tribunal of Arbitration, the question of such, liability should be definitely and fully settled and determined, and compensation made for any injuries for which, in the contemplation of the Treaty aforesaid, and the Award and findings of the Tribunal of Arbitration, compensation may be due to Great Britain from the United States." If I properly interpret this part of the Convention it means that both parties were at liberty before the Paris Tribunal to submit questions of fact to that Tribunal. But because these facts were found it did not limit the parties under this Convention, nor did it limit your Honours to the facts therein found. Of course, I admit that your Honours are not allowed to find any facts in cases in which the facts have been found by the Paris Tribunal, but the governing element in. 40 <5o — "^zrcEZBSE^ffl »m 35 io 20 this Convention is that full compensation should be awarded from the facts as found. In answer to the questions from No. 1 to No. 5, which we find on page 3 of this Appendix, Article VI. says: "In deciding the matters submitted to the arbitrators, it is agreed that the following five points shall be submitted to them, in order that their award shall embrace a distinct decision upon each of said five points, to wit: 1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the Sea, now known as the Behring Sea, and what exclusve rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and up to the time of the session of Alaska to the United States." I need not read these five questions, but the answers to these questions were the basis of the responsibility of the United States towards Great Britain; and it is for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of that responsibility that the present Tribunal has been formed. I, therefore, say that if the facts have been ascertained at Paris, this Tribunal is not allowed to make any finding of facts. This Tribunal is bound by the facts then found. But I say that if there exists any claim, so that full compensation may be awarded this Tribunal is at perfect liberty to make itself any finding of facts. That is perfectly evident from the fact that additional claims to the number of four or five have been allowed under this Convention. There were no facts found at Paris so far as the "Winnifred," for instance, is concerned. There was no finding of facts so far as the "Sayward" case is concerned, and this Commission is surely entitled and empowered and instructed to find the facts as far as these are concerned. I say that the terms of this Convention are of the broadest possible kind. The object of the Convention is to ascertain the damages that have been suffered, so that full compensation may be granted by the United States to Great Britain. There is nothing in the Convention itself that can lim-' it its terms in the sense indicated by my learned friend. On the contrary, when they come to refer to the personal claims in the Convention, they are referred to in a general way. There was no reference made to the prsonal claims as far as names are concerned, and my learned friend's contention in 4° the other cases could not be borne out at all in the present case. The only reference made was to designate them under the head of the personal claims in 18S6 and 18S7, but no reference whatever is made to the fact that these personal claims amounted to a certain sum, or that these personal claims were intended to cover the demands of A, B or C. We therefore claim that under the terms of the Convention t Ins claim is properly filed. Now, I call your Honours attention to the letter of Sir Julian Pauncefote to Mr. Gresham of the 7th of June, 1894, to which my friend, Mr. Peters, has also referred. That letter is printed in the documents which have been put before the Commission. The reference made to the present claim is as follows: 30 5o ADA. "Claim of the Master, Captain Gaudin, for personal loss, and damage, $3,000. "This claim was by a mistake on the part of the agent of 00 the owner of the "Ada" not included when the other claims in connection with this vessel were entered. Captain Gaudin thought that it had been so included, and it was only on seeing the printed list of the British claims that he discovered that such was not the case. He at once requested that the omission might be rectified and his claim added to the list, and Her Majesty's Government, after causing an enquiry to be made into the circumstances of the case, decided that his application should be granted. Captain Gaudin's. cla.im. 10 20 30 40 50 60 36 has accordingly been added to the schedule of the claims em- tered with respect to the schooner " Ada." When this was transmitted to the I'nited States Government no exceptions whatever were taken to it. As has already been stated, when the negotiations for the payment of a lump sum took place, it was intended that the lump sum should include the claim of the "Ada" as well as the other claims; therefore, it is perfectly plain, from all that has passed before the Convention, in the negotiations between the two Governments, and in the action of the United States Government in dealing with ihese claims, as far as the lump sum was concerned—it is, I say, perfee-tly plain that this claim of Captain Gaudin was to form part of the compensation that was to be paid. If a lump sum of money had been paid by the' I'nited States Captain Gaudin's claim would have formed part of it, and he would have been entitled to a share of the distribution. Except we can find that when the parties came to prepare this Convention they had departed from what had preceded, and came to the conclusion that this claim should not form part of the claims that were to be investigated, I say that the motion of mv learned frienel cannot be sustaineel. The words of the Convention are in the broadest possible language, "personal claims" being merely referred to in a general way as designated by the year in which they arose, and they are not limited in any way to the personal claims as filed before the Paris Tribunal. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you think we have jurisdiction over any possible claims for these two years, 1886 and 1887? Mr. Beique:—Yes, your Honour, I think you have. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I only put the question as a test. Do you think that under a fair construction of the Convention we would have jurisdiction over all possible claims as existing for these two years? • Mr. Beique:—Y~es, your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Taking the whole Convention altogether, would we have jurisdiction over claims for the year 1888? Mr. Beique:—I think that the jurisdiction is limited to these two years, 1886 and 1887, as far as the personal claims are- cemcerned. The terms of the Convention are most precise on that, and there is nothing to the contrary. For instance, we cannot be allowed to prefer claims in respect of vessels that were seuzed in 1891 or 189"J. We wouid not be entitled to prefer any claims for these years. I desire to call your Honours' attemtion again to the letter of Sir Julian Pauncefote, of date June the 7th, 1894, and to impress upon your Honours the fact that he set forth this particular claim of James Gaudin and writes a personal enclosure with regard to it. Mr. Dickinson:—I desire to make one reference to that letter written by Sir Julian I'auncifevte to Mr. Gresham. In enclosure 116 he speaks of the claim of the Master, Captain Gaudin, for personal loss and damage. $3,000, but in the general schedule he puts in this claim with the other claims that he desires to add, as "Extra for ihe 'Ada.' | I would like to ask my learned friends on the other side if they have the reply of Mr, Gresham? Mr. Peters:—Y'es. Mr. Dickinson:—The point 1 desire to make is that this claim of Mr. Gaudin, which it is now sought to eliminate from the claim of ilic "Aela." was presented precisely as the IO 20 30 40 50 60 37 claim for the '"Black Diamond" and the other extra claims were presented. It was presented precisely as the claim for the "Henrietta" and the "Juanita" and the "Oscar and Hattie," which are put in as general claims. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—We will consider these motions. The Commissioners then adjourned until half-past ten o'clock on Monday- morning. Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, November 30, 1896. At 10:30 A.M. the Commissioners took their seats. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty .-There is an additional rule that we thought perhaps might be made obviating the necessity of formal adjournments from day to day'; the Commissioners simply rising at the conclusion of business to resume their seats the next day, ordinarily at the hour named. The rule would be in the following terms: "The sittings of the Commissioners shall be deemed to be always open, and in the case of formal adjournment may be resumed at any time during the continuance of such adjournment, upon notice to the counsel." Mr. Dickinson:—We have agreed so far as counsel is concerned, to an addition to Rule five, accepting the suggestion of your Lordship as to an amendment of that rule. The addition to the rule'would read: "If either party thus transfers any part of the testimony of any one of its own witnesses, relating to any matter as to which such witness has not been cross-examined, such party, on the request of the other party, and by the direction of either Commissioner, shall produce such witness in the case to which such testimony is transferred, for cross-examination in reference thereto." That is the first suggestion as originally prepared by your Honour, Commissioner Putnam, with the suggestion of your Lordship added. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Do both parties agree to that? Mr. Peters:—Y'es, as an addition to Rule five. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The Secretary will incorporate it in the rules. Is there anything further, gentlemen? Mr. Dickinson:—While we have been expeditious within the time given us under the rule in the preparation of our replies, we have been somewhat disappointed in the return of our manuscript and proofs from the printer, and we have only seven of the cases actually served and filed, and two under motion. The printer promises to be \cry expeditious to-day and we expect to have them all in. I understand that my learned friend .Mr. Peters can go on with some selected case. Mr. Peters:—I think the exact number of the replies we •have received refers to only seven cases; being the cases of actual seizure, beginning with the first of such cases and taking several others. The pleading in that necessitates us 33 putting in a very short reply, which reply we bave drafted now and will be able to give my learned friend this evening. We will be ready very soon to go on with the trial of case number one. We are practically ready now. We propose to take the case of the "Carolena," and perhaps my learned friend will take this as notice that this will be the first case. Mr. Dickinson:—Very well. 10 Mr. Peters:—We propose to go on with the cases for 1886 as that seems to us the best procedure. Our intention at the present time is to follow that up with the cases for 1887, and then for 1889, and then the special cases will come on one by one, as they are distinct and separate cases altogether. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—You will have it minuted in the docket according to the rulers. Mr. Peters:—I shall do so to-day. 20 Mr. Dickinson:—We have filed a motion to dismiss from consideration before the Commissioners claim number twenty-six, entitled "Costs in the Sayward Case." We have filed this statement appended to the motion, to which I will call your Honour's attention very briefly. "The United States submit this motion to the High Commissioners with the statement that they are now prepared to answer any claim for such 'costs in the Sayward case' as have been incurred by any person or persons, and which were 'submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration at Paris,' or 3° any claim 'forXmts in Sayward case' incurred by any person or persons;' but if it shall be insisted by Her Majesty's Government that claims for expenditures in that case made by that Government or by the Government of Canada, shall be presented and considered before the Commissioners, then the counsel for the United States will move the High Commissioners for a postponement of the hearing of this motion until communication can be had with their Government." I understand the learned Attorney-General, Mr. Peters, to say that he will insist upon the present condition of the 4° claim as made, whether the costs are for the Government of Great Britain or Canada, or for a person or persons. Mr. Peters:—Since my learned friend puts that question to me I must distinctly say that we do insist upon the claim as put forward, namely, the sum of $62,000; and reading the Convention as I do, I am surprised that this motion should be made. We certainly do claim that $62,000, the exact sum mentioned there. That we should simply claim some amount paid by «ome particular private individual is not the claim 5° that we put forward at all. Therefore, in regard to the last statement in the motion of my learned friend, we cannot for a moment make any other statement than that the sum we claim is the sum that was actually paid by the Government of Canada, through, of course—so far as this Tribunal is concerned—the British Government. Mr. Dickinson:—If the Commissioners prefer we will state our position, and then instead of a postponement of the motion we shall ask the privilege, before a decision is rendered, 6o to communicate with our Government upon the question of the understanding of the Government in respect to the nature of the claims that can be put in under "the costs in the Sayward case." As we understand the Convention, and the action of the Tribunal at Paris, no claim can be put in by any Government such as. "costs in the Sayward case." ' That claim can only apply to the costs incurred' by individual claimants in pursuit of litigation, and in no case can it apply to the costs of a Government disbursing sums of money in regard to the questions which afterwards went before the 39 io 20 30 4° 60 Paris Tribunal. We contend that the Government can no more put in this claim than they could put in a claim for the costs of counsel before the Paris Tribunal, because the decision of that Tribunal happened to be adverse to the United States. In other words, costs in a long proceeding before an international Tribunal, and in a proceeding which embraces both judicial proceedings and negotiations and arbitration costs do not follow the judgment. If it did, costs on behalf of the Government could be put in for everything that has been done; the employment of counsel in the negotiations, the employment of counsel for advice, the employment of counsel in litigation and judicial proceedings, and the employment of counsel before the Tribunal of Arbitration. That, as I understand it, is excluded by the terms of the Convention. Of course the record discloses that there were costs in the Sayward case by individuals, separate anet* distinct from the costs of the Government. If the Commissioners desire it, I will endeavor to enlighten the Commissioners as far as I can as to our position in this matter, with the understanding that before the decision is rendered, I shall prefer to get the instructions of my Government upon this question of whether we may pursue an investigation with regard to such costs of the British Government or of the Government of the Dominion of Canada. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—In our Circuit Court, where we have so many questions of jurisdiction, if we find a sharp question of jurisdiction raised, it is quite our custom to dispose of it on the motion to dismiss. But if we find a question of jurisdiction raised which requires the opening of the record at all, it is usual for us to postpone the hearing of a motion to dismiss until the hear ing on the merits; reserving all rights. Would not that meet your position Mr. Dickinson with regard to this particular case? Mr. Dickinson:—With reference to this particular case, it would your Honour, but not as to the other questions of jurisdiction. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I refer to this particular case which seems to be somewhat an involved question requiring perhaps an examination of the record. Mr. Dickinson:—If your Honours would like I could give you the reference to the protocols of the Tribunal of Arbitration on the claims which are in question here. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—If the Commissioners would be willing to postpone this mo- tion to dismiss, to be heard in connection' with the merits, reserving all the rights, I ask you, whether or not they would best meet your purpose and give you an opportunity of communicating with the Government of the United States. Mr. Dickinson:—1 think not, your Honour. I think the question should be met on the threshold. If the costs of the Government can be entertained here then they may come in in connection with every other case in which the Government has incurred expense. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you desire to have the motion heard now or do you wish first to communicate with the authorities at Washington before the motion is heard? Mr. Dickinson:—I do not care to press this motion now. If I should be instructed by the Government to answer the claim and go into the merits upon it, it would perhaps not be necessary. Mr. Peters has expressed surprise at this mo- IO 20 3° 40 50 60 40 tion, but we are equally surprised that he should put in any costs in the Sayward case, embracing anything else than what appears by the record to have been expended by individuals. We are surprised at this action in view of Article I. of the Convention which provides that this investigation before this Commission is confined to the claims of persons. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Do you wish to postpone this motion until you communicate with the authorities at Washington? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty—There is no objection on the part of the Commissioners. Mr. Dickinson:—Very well. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—There is the contingency that it might possibly save argument on the motion. Mr. Peters:—I have no objection to the course of postponing the motion. With regard to other matters that have been raised before this court with reference to the two other claims, the judgment of the Commissioners might, I think, very well be postponed until a similar opportunity has been given us to communicate with the authorities at Ottawa. I might say that I have taken occasion to communicate by telegraph with Sir Julian Pauncefote on the matter, in view of the objections raised by my learned friend. Mr. Dickinson might perhaps wish to communicate with Mr. Olney on the same matter, and probably the course which is taken with regard to the Sayward would also be taken with regard to the other cases; that is, that no judgment should be rendered on these motions until we have the result of the communications which I have made, and which I think I am correct in saying my learned friend Mr. Dickinson has also made. Mr. Dickinson:—I made no enquiries because I considered myself sufficiently enlightened upon this matter by the diplomatic correspondence. I will say further, that I have reported to my Government the presentation of the claims, showing how they seem to be outside of the Convention. Substantially I reported to the Government that Great Britain proposes to entertain these claims embracing in my communication the substance of what I have presented to the' Commissioners. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Nothing will be done upon the present motion which has not been formally made, but of which notice has been given. It lies over for the present. Mr. Dickinson:—That refers to the Sayward costs. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Yes, nothing will be done about it until it is called to our atten ' tion by counsel. I The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It is open for Mr. Dickinson at any time to move in the matter. Mr. Peters:—I may state to the Commissioners before wo adjourn to-day that if it suits the convenience of the Commissioners we would be ready, and we propose, to go on with the case of the "Carolena" on Wednesday morning. Mr. Dickinson:—That is satisfactory to us if it pleases the Commissioners. The Commismsn then rose. 41 io 20 30 40 SO 60 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8' 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 2, 1896. At 10:30 the Commisioners took their seats. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The Commissioners have received a communication from the Lieutenant-Governor as to the statement contained in the first Protocol, and direct the Secretary to file and enter it upon the Protocol to-day. Are you ready now Mr. Peters ? Mr. Peters:—I informed the Commissioners a few days ago that I would present to them a copy of the schedules of claims as presented at the Paris Tribunal. I now do so, it being clearly understood that I merely present them for the convenience of the Commission, not putting them in in any way as evidence, nor as binding on us as to the question of amount. I simply put them in for convenience,' and informally, as it is perfectly apparent that the Commissioners will have to refer to the schedules. I have furnished my learned friends on the other side with copies, also for their convenience. Mr. Dickinson:—Of course the paging is not the same, may it please the Commissioners. The paging of the original case for purposes of reference all through the Protocols and the award of the Paris Tribunal is from pages 1 to 60, embracing the same matter. Mr. Peters:—We now intend to proceed, may it please the Commissioners, with the case of the "Carolena." 1 do not think it will be necessary to make any lengthy preliminary remarks with regard to that case. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I would like to know what the pleadings are. Mr. Peters:—I will read the pleadings, so that we may see how the matter actually stands. The pleadings are set forth in the statement of claim number 1, and the claim alleges that: On or about the 20th May, 1S96, the "Carolena" sailed from Victoria, British Columbia, bound on a sealing voyage to the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea. Her master "was James Blake. She carried a crew of nine sailors and hunters, and was fully equipped for said voyage, and for the hunting and capture of seals. On the 1st day of August, 1SS6, whilst iu the Berinfg Sea, in North Latitute 55:50; West Longitude 168:53 and distant about 70 miles from the nearest land, the "Carolena" being- then lawfully engaged in the taking of seals at that place, was seized by the I'nited States revenue cutter "Corwin." The "Carolena" was towed by said cutter to Ounalaska and there dismantled, and such proceedings were afterwards had and taken in the' United States District Court of Alaska, at the instance of the Government of the United States of America, that the said schooner, her tackle, apparel, out tit and cargo were condemned for.a violation of the municipal laws of the United States of America relating to the seal fishing in the waters of Alaska, and detained under such condemnation until after the month of December, 1887. when the return of the said schooner was offered but not ace-epted on the ground that the vesel had been practically wrecked in the meantime. By reason of the premises further prosecution of the 10 20 30 4Q so 60 42 said sealing voyage during the year 1886 was wholly prevented, and the owner of said schoner was also prevented from using her for the purposes of seal hunting during the year 1887, as he otherwise would have done; and finally the said schoner, her tackle, apparel, outfit and cargo were wholly lost to those interested in the same, and other loss, damage and expense were suffered and incurred by the persons so interested. Under the facts as found in the award of the Paris Tribunal of Arbitration the said seizure, condemnation and detention were without any warrant or right according to the principles of international law, and Her Britannic Majesty claims that full and complete compensation should be made by the Government of the United States of America to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty for all loss thereby sustained. The claim made for the loss arising out of the premises is the sum of $30,000 and interest thereon from the date of loss at the rate of seven per centum per annum. Mr. Peters:—Properly, I may stop there for "'be present, as the other claims relate to the personal claims of the master and mate, and may fairly be considered in the evidence at all events. In reply to that claim the United States set up the following defence: 1. They admit that on or about August 1st, 1896, at a distance of about seventy-five miles from the nearest land, the said vessel, the "Carolena," was seized by the United States revenue cutter "Corwin" and that said seizure was made in Bering Sea and was ratified and adopted by the Government of the United States. But it is averred on the part of the United States, that the said seizure was made in good faith, by officers of the United States, within the line of their duty under the authority and mandate of the municipal laws of the United States, for a violation of the statutes of the United States, and such seizure was ratified and adopted in good faith by the Government of the United States as for a violation of their said statutes. 2. The United States aver that, before, at the time of, and after the seizure of the said vesel, the said vessel, her apparel, outfit and cargo, were wholly or in part the actual property of a citizen or citizens of the United States, and further that at the times aforesaid the beneficial interest in the whole or a part of the said vessel, her apparel, outfit and cargo, were possessed and owned by a citizen or citizens of the United States, and that her said voyage was entered upon and prosecuted, in whole or in part, for the benefit of a citizen or citizens of the United States. They proceed to say. in Section 3 that "As to some of the statements of detail and fact in paragraphs numbered 2, '3, 4, and 5 in the said Claim of Her Britannic Majesty, the representatives of the United States have no sufficient knowledge, and as to such of them as may be held material the United States invite and require authentic and suitable proofs before the High Commisioners." Whilst reading that section I think I might fairly point out to the Commissioners that this section is not so much a question of pleading, or a statement of fact, as a question that will hereafter arise upon Ihe evidence when you come to the assessment of damages. It is more a question of law than of fact, and it is a matter hardly in issue, and hardly to be joined on. It will be .'in issue of law that may be raised on the evidence. Then they go on: 4 As to paragraph numbered 5 in said claim, the United 43 io 20 States will submit to the High Commissioners and will insist that they are not liable for damages for the detention of such vessel when the seizure, as is alleged and shown in said Claim, resulted in the total loss to the owners, of the vessel, her outfit, apparel and cargo, as of the time of said seizure; and that in any event the damages therein suggested and claimed are of the nature of prospective profits and speculative damages, so uncertain as to form no legal, equitable or suitable basis f&r a finding of fact upon which an assessment thereof can be predicated. 5. The United States will further insist that, so far as a proper claim for damages for total loss is concerned, the statement of the loss alleged in paragraph 7 as having arisen out of the said seizure is grossly excessive. 6. As to the further amount claimed for the alleged improper arrest, imprisonment and detention of James Ogilvie and James Blake, persons employed upon said vessel at the time of her sei/.ure, the United States admit the arrests as stated, but deny the imprisonment and statements of fact incident thereto as detailed in the statement of the British Claim; and.they aver that such arrests and all subsequent proceedings thereon by the officials of the United States were made, entered upon and had, in good faith, under the mandate and authority erf the municipal laws of the United States, for a violation of the statutes of the United States; and they aver that the only damages to be considered, in case of any liability on the part of the United States for such arrests and detentions, are those for actual pecuniary loss and are not in their nature puntive or aggravated damages. 7. The United States do not admit any liability on this claim. 40 So 60 To that a reply has been put in on the part of Her Brittanic Majesty, and it is as follows. 1. Her Britannic Majesty joins issue on paragraphs 1, 4, 5, and 6 of the reply of the United States, except in so far as they contain admissions. 2. In further answer to the second part of said paragraph 1, Her Britannic Majesty submits that the same constitutes no defence to Mer Majestj-'s claim or any part thereof. 3. As to paragraph 2, Her Britannic Majesty says that (he above-named schoner was found by the Tribunal of Arbitration at Paris to be a British vessel, and submits that it is not open to the Commisioners, acting under the Bering Sea Claims Convention, to enquire as to her ownership; the said finding of facts being conclusive so far as this Commission is concerned. 4. And in the alternative and in further answer to said paragraph 2, Her Britannic Majesty submits that even if such inquiry can be entered upon, it should be limited to the question of the actual ownership of the said vessel only, and that as between nations, and should not in any event extend as to the beneficial interest in the whole or a part of the vessel, her apparel, outfit and cargo; or as to whether her voyage was entered upon and prosecuted in whole or in part for the benefit of a citizen or citizens of the United States. 5. In further answer to said paragraph 2, Her Britannic Majesty denies each and every of the allegations of fact therein contained. 6. Her Britannic Majesty further submits that according to the principles of international law, the practice obtaining among nations, and the terms of the Bering Sea Claims Convention, the allegations contained in the said Reply even if p*pved, do not constitute any defence to the Claim for compensation set forth in the said Statement of Claim. These pleadings relate to questions of fact and certain 20 44 questions of law. A very small portion of the issues lie upon our sielS to pro^e. All the allegations with regard to the eiwuership of. the vessel, if they can be raised at all, must be proved by my learned friend. With regard to those issues, we do not propose to give any evidence whatever at the present time. With regard to that part of the claim which sets up that this vessel or her cargo was owned by people who are American citizens, we do not at the present time propose to tender any evidence whatever. We do not think that we 10 have anything to do with that issue, until evidence has been given by my learned friend on the other side with regard (o that question; so we shall confine ourselves now to putting before the Commissioners evidence which we think bears upon such of the issues as it is incumbent on us to prove. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Are you not bound to make a prima facie case as to nationality, under the first two lines of your claim? Mr. Peters:—Under the first two lines of our claim we allege that she is a registered ship, and that is admitted. Mr. Dickinson:—There is no admission, but I have no doubt they will show a British Registry, your Honour. Mr. Peters:—I intend as a matter of fact to put in the very document which was taken from this vessel, or a copy of it. I have not the original, but. my learned friend has furnished me with a copy of it—the very document which this vessel caried at the time she was seized. That is all the 30 evidence we propose at the presnt time to lay before the Commissioners. That will be quite sufficient to make a prima facie case. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It occurs to me that you ought to put in enough to show her nationality, prima facie, at any rate. Mr. Peters:—The fact that she flew the British flag will be quite sufficient to prove that; but as a matter of fact we submit that it is admitted on the pleadings. The Commissiemer on the part of the United States:—I never so undersood it. Mr. Peters:—We intend to lay before the Commission■ rs the certificate of registration. I think that will cover the prima facie case, if we are bound to go into that question at all. whie-h I do not admit. We are quite prepared to give th'it evidence,—in fact ii will come out in the course of this e*ase, - and I think there will be no question at all that this ship 50 did have a British register. Now these being the issues, we propose to lay the evidence before your Honours something as follows: The fact that thai this seizure took place in 1S86, of course makes it difficult for us to obtain tie quantity of evidence we would like to obtain as to the actual facts. With regard to this very ship, the "Carolena," of all the crew that were on board of her at the time of seizure, but few are obtainable.. As a matter of fact I am correct in saying that none of-them e-an actually be obtained to give; evidence before this Commission. So far as 60 -we can ascertain, there are only two or three of them whos-j places of residence can now be found out, and we cannot obtain them to give their evidence in this matter. We can, he>\v ever, obtain the evidence of some of the men wTho were in the other ships al ihe time' the seizures took place, ships that were also seized, and men who frcm personal knowledge have a certain amount of information, at all events, as to what teTok place after the seizures were made. Your Honours will see that the seizures in 1886 all took place about the same time. 40 45 to 20 The first and second of August were the dates of all the seizures, and we have some of the witnesses from some of tie other ships which were seized at that time, who will be able to give, as experienced eve-witnesses, the facts that took place after the seizures. 1 propose, first, to lay befeire this Commission the diplomatic correspondence which took place with regard to this particular vessel. I cannot make this vessel exactly separate, because the correspondence, as a matter of fact, related to the three vessels that were seized; and I prope>se in the first instance, in order to bring the matter at once before the commissioners, to point out to your Honours the parts of the correspondence that we deem apply to the present case. The facts, as your Honours are now aware, are, that the seizure of that vessel took place on the first day of August, 1S86. I refer to Senate Executive Document, No. 106, Fiftieth Congress second session, that being a message from the President of the United States transmitting to the Senate the correspondence relating to those different seizures; and I find on page 22 of that document a copy of the record of the proceedings against the "Carolena." which I propose to put in evidence. I do not think it necessary to encumber the record by putting in all the formal documents, that is to say, the original libel, and the monition and some merely preliminary proceedings as to taking the evidence; but I propose to come to the actual evidence given in the case, which is found beginning at page 19. There the heading is . 3© '40 IN THE I'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA. I'NITED STATES OF AMERK 'A. The United States of America vs. The Schooner "Carolena." No. 51. Deposition of witnesses sworn and examined before me on the 7th day of September, A.I). 1886; at 7 o'clock p.m. of said elay, and on September 8th and 9th. lssii. thereafter, at the clerk's office of said court in Sitka, district of Alaska, United States of Amerie-a, by virtue and in pursuance of the order of said court, made and entered in the above entitled action on September 6th, 1886, directing that the testimony and depositions of said witnesses be taken before me at the said first mentioned time and place and at such subsequent times as the taking of the same might be continued by me, in said action then and there pending in said district court between the United States as plaintiff and the schooner Carolena as defendant, on behalf of and at the instance of the said plaintiff, the United States, and upon notice of the time and place of taking of said depositions, served upon James Blake, the mate of said schooner, he being the only officer of said schooner upon whom service could be made, and upon W. Clark, Esq., his attorney, the owners of said schooner being unknown and without the jurisdiction of this court. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is this a part of your opening, or are you offering it as evidence? 6s Mr. Peten in evidence. propose to point out the part I want to give The Commissioner on ihe part of the United States:—You are not offering the evidence now? Mr. Peters:—I propose to state to the Court what parts I desire to put in evidence, and then tender it, in block, without going over it again. The witness called was Captain ('. A. Abbey, who, being duly sworn, deposes and says; 46 io 20 40 50 60 Captain C. A. Abbey, being duly sworn, deposes and says: Q. State your name and occupation.—A. Captain C .A. Abbey, in the United States Revenue Marine Service, at present in command of the U. S. revenue steamer "Corwin" on special duty in Alaskan waters, for the protection of the seal islands and of the Government interests in Alaska generally. Q. What were you doing and what occurred on the 1st of August last in the line of your duty?—A. Cruising in Bering Sea about seventy-five miles south-southeast from St. George's Island, and I found the British schooner "Carolena" of Victoria, B. G, drifting with sails down. Her boats were absent and she was evidently a sealer. I saw dead seals lying upon her forward deck; inquired of the schooner in which direction her boats were. Mr. Peters:—I simply call the attention of the Commissioners to this particular evidence, with the view of pointing out that at the very time this seizure took place the vessel was actually engaged in seal fishing. He says I then ordered her to be seized by Lieut. Cantwell for killing fur-seal in the waters of Alaska, took her in tow and proceeded to hunt up her boats, all four of which I found with freshly-killed fur-seal in them, arms, ammunition and hunters, some of whom I saw shooting at the seal in the water. These boats all went on board the "Carolena." On this evidence I caused the vessel to be seized by Lieut. Cant- well. I took her in tow and proceeded with her to Ouna- laska, where I placed the vessel, tackle, cargo, furniture, and appurtenances in charge of Deputy U. S. Marshal Isaac Anderson, of Ounalaska; the cargo of fur-seals being stored in "Keuch," in one of the warehouses of the Alaska Commercial Company, and under seal. The arms and ammunition of the vessel 1 took on board the "Corwin" and brought to Sitka and delivered into the custody of the U. S. marshal there. The vessel, tackle, furniture and cargo are now in the custody of the U. S. marshal of this district. Q. Was this the vessel against which this libel of information was filed?—A. It is. Q. Did all this occur within the waters of Alaska and the Territory of Alaska, and within the jurisdiction of this court? —A. It did. Q. Did this occur within the waters of the sea navigable for vessels of ten (101 tons burden or over?—A. It did. C. A. ABBEY. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of September, A.D. 1886, after having been read over by me to deponent. ANDREW T. LEWIS, Clerk. Then the next witness is called. He is Lieutenant Cant- well. He is asked to state his name, and so forth, and he does so. He is asked Lieutenant John C. Cantwell, being duly sworn, deposes and says: Q. State your name, occupation and age?—A. John C. Cantwell, third lieutenant, U. S. Marine Service, at present on duty on the V. S. Revenue steamer "Corwin," and over the age of twenty one years. Q. Were you so on the 1st day of August last?—A. I was. Q. State what occurred on that day in the line of your duty. —A1. A schooner was sighted from the "Corwin," and I was elirected L> Captain Abbey to board her. I found her to be the schooner "Carolena," of Victoria, B.C., James Ogilvie, < aptain, ar.el -Tames Blake, mate. I saw dead seal upon her deck and the captain admitted that he was engaged in taking seal, and that four of the schooner's boats were at the time to 47 absent from the vessel engaged in killing seals. I signalled this fact to Captain Abbey and he directed me to seize the vessel, which I did, and the "Corwin" took us in tow. Q. Do you recognize these papers?—A. I do. This paper marked (Ex. I) is the certificate of registry of the schooner "Carolena," of Victoria, B. C. (Said certificate is dated March 21st, 1870, and represents said schooner as of 3,190 tons burden, and, owned by Francis Armstrong, of Victoria, B. C). This paper marked (Ex. J) is the bill of health of said schooner. (Said bill of health is dated at Victoria, B. C, May 19th, 1886, and represents said schooner "Carolena" as then ready to depart for Bering Sea and Okhotsk Sea and other places beyond the Sea, with James Ogilvie, master, and eleven persons, including said master.) This paper marked (Ex. K) is the coasting license of said schexraer. (Said license is in the usual form, to James Ogilvie, master of the schooner "Carolena," dated at Victoria, B. C, Feb. 16th, 1886, and in terms expires on the 30th day of June, 1886.) This paper marked (Ex. L) is the clearance of said schooner. (Said 20 clearance is for said schooner as of 31.90 tons, navigated with eleven men, James Ogilvie, master, bound for Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea and Okhotsk Sea, on a fishing and hunting voyage, and is dated at Victoria, B.C.. May 19th. 1886.) All of which papers were found on board the "Carolena" at the time of seizure and taken possession of by me. Q. State how many men the "Carolena'' had on board as crew when seized.—A. Thirteen or fourteen. Q. State whether this is a reasonable number of men for ordinary purposes of commerce and navigation?—A. It is an unusually large number for that purpose on a vessel of that size. JOHN C. CANTWELL, 3rd Lieutenant U. S. R. M. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of September, A.D. 1886, after having been read over by me to deponent. (SEAL.) ANDREW T. LEWIS, Clerk U. S. Dist. Court. 3© 40 <5s Then John U. Rhodes is examined, and he says: John U. Rhodes, being duly sworn, deposes anl says': Q. State your name, age and occupation.—A. John U. Rhodes, Lieut. I'. S. Revenue Marine, and at present on duty on the U. S. revenue steamer "Corwin," and over the age of 21 years. Q. State what arms and ammunition were seized on the schooner "Carolena" at the time of her seizure.—A. 4 rifles, 1 musket, 5 shotguns, 171 shotgun cartridges, 353 rifle cartridges, 14i bags buck-shot, -J bag of bullets, 40 bags of wads, 21 boxes wads, 13 boxes primers, 1£ boxes caps, 91 lbs. powder. Q. Were there any nautical instruments seized on the Carolena except what is included in the general inventory?—A. 1 octant, 1 quadrant. Q.—What has become of this property? A.—It has all been delivered to the U. S. Marshal at Sitka, and is now in his custody. JOHN U. RHODES. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of September, A.D. 3886, after having been read over by, me to deponent. (SEAL.) ANDREW T. LEWIS, Clerk U. S. Dist. Court. Mr. Peters:—There is a witness named Douglas, to whose evidence I wish particularly to call the attention of the Commissioners at this time, ! II; Mr. Dickinson:—Of course, in so far as the executive document presents the statements of the officers of the "Corwin" in making the seizure", there is no question whatever that my iriends are entitled to read it; but when they take any other witness, and read his testimony as evidence here, merely because it is in an executive document, in which the President submits certain documents to Congress, we say that the United States are not bound by the statement, and that it will be contrary to the purposes of the Convention, if they 10 are suffered to ptfl in the evidence of any witness, to make their case, from a copy of his testimony printed in an executive document, or in a newspaper. The purpose of the holding of the- Convention is to have such witnesses as they choose to produe e put under bath, and examined before the Court. We cannot be bound by the testimony of a stranger, by that of a mere employee, or that of a pilot who may happen to have been called in the District Court of the United States at Alaska!.'* If it makes at all for the case of Great Britain upon the assessment of damages, or upon any 20 other material fact in the hearing before the Commission on these questions, we are certainly not bound by it, simply because the. President transmitted all the documents pro and con—whatever was in the Executive Office or any executive department of the Government—to Congress. By so doing, he did not certify that the United States took any statements of men such as this, or the statement of any man who writes a letter, or who testifies, as the truth. Possibly my friend proposes to go on and read the testimony of the witnesses for the "Carolina" in the Alaska Court. 3° Mr. Peters:—I do not. Mr. Dickinson:—But we submit that we are not bound by the statement of any part v on the general subject of sealing, or as to any other matter Which is material on the issue here, simply because it is printed in the executive document trans; mitting information. Mr. Peters:—I do not for a moment contend because-a letter or any other proceeding is printed in an execu- 40 tive document, thai therefore, it becomes^ evidence as against the Government that allows it to be printed. Such a contention could not be made; but I do submit this: when the United States Government take certain proceedings against a ship of ours, I have a right to show what those proceedings were, what evidence they tendered against us, and on what evidence they condemned us. I am taking the evidence that they chose to relv on themselves. It may have been true, or it may not have been true, I am not going to inquire into that So fact. Now, then, when we come and say thai the condemnation should not have been made, we have the right to take the benefit of the evidence they themselves gave. I do not for a moment contentl that I can use ihe evidence that we gave before that inquiry; but here they brought a proceeding against our ship, thev called certain witnesses to prove what that ship had done, and, so far as that is concerned, those were facts which they themselves allege to be facts. We saw 'You allege -*ose to be facts"; now. then, taking the facts as vou allege them, we have the right to show that 60 those were the facts alleged by bringing witnesses to prove them. Mr. Dickinson:—But, may it please the Court, the fact of the seizure for sealing is admitted; the fact of the seizure of the ship, cffgo and equipment is admitted. Now, it_ is unnecessary for my friend to show what facts were presented, because the Tribunal of Arbitration ai Paris found the fact that, if this was a British vessel, the seizure was illegal and the condemnation was illegal. There is no doubt am 49 about it. It is unnecessary for my friends to show that over again, and that question of whether that seizure was legal or illegal is concluded by the Convention itself, and your Honours go into no question which is concluded by the Convention. You cannot, because under the second clause of Article III. you are empowered to administer and receive' every question of fact not found by the Tribunal of Arbitration. That Tribunal of .Arbitration settled the question of the seizure, so far as British vessels were concerned, as illegal. When they settled that she was seized beyond the legal distance 10 from land, they have settled that the condemnation must therefore have been illegal. Those questions are adjusted, and, if she is a British vessel, they have settled that the sole question remaining is as to the damage that accrued to the owner. Mr. Peters:—On that very point it would appear that this evidence must be allowed. Now let us refer back for a moment. I have already read the evidence of Mr. Rhodes, which evidence was given on behalf of the United States 20 and adopted by them. Mr. Rhodes states that there we're certain rifles, certain ammunition, and certain' other things seized. Does my learned friend contend that I cannot read that. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not object to that. Mr. Peters:—Is not that just as objectionable as the evidence of Mr. Douglas ? On what ground is the onej aelmis- sible and' the other not admissible? It is admissible because it is evidence te'iidered by the United Slaters, and whether ten- 30 dered by direct authority or not, it must be taken to have been done because the case was conducted by some person acting on behalf of the District Attorney. That evidence •was tendered by them, adopted by the United States and the condemnation made on that evidence was adopted. Now, my learned friend says, with regard to the evidence of Rhodes, that it is admissible. Wb.y? It is admissible because the United States themselves gave that evidence, and they would not have given it unless they believed that the - evidence was genuine and we are allowed to take advantage 40 of it. Now, we come to the next question: My learned friend says there are certain things that have been admitted and found by the Tribunal of Arbitration that we cannot inquire into any further. So far I am agreed; but there are certain things not found by that Tribunal. They have not touched the question of compensation, the value of things taken, nor the value of the damage done. This very evidence of Mr. Rhodes,' which I have read, is valuable on that point. It shows the articles taken, Which was not found1 bv 50 the Paris Tribunal. This evidence of Mr. Douglas, that I am about to read, goes to the very same point. We are not ■here to try over, again the questions found before the Paris Tribunal. We will take full advantage of those findings, but we have to show the consequences of the acts done in connection with them. We can only prove that by showing their own view of it, and I submit that I can read that evidence. Mr. Dickinson:—The Douglas testimony, as I understand 6o it, goes into the question of fur seal life, the method of taking the seal, and so on, as your Honours will see on looking at that testimony. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is this class of testimony voluminous. Mr. Peters:—There is only one witness. Mr. Dickinson-—I suggest that your Honours hear it, and III te 20 30 40 5© 60 So then your Honours will see that it cannot possibly bind the United States, and therefore cannot be evidence here. Mr. Peters:—I would like to make this remark: You are sitting not as an ordinary court of justice, but as a Commission to investigate these matters, with the possibility that, in case of difference, it may have to go to a third arbitrator; and, with that view of the case, ought the rule not to be adopted rather to take in everything that may, by any fair leasonable argument, be considered as bearing upon the questions between the parties, so that hereafter if such an unfortunate thing should occur as a reference to a third arbitrator, the record would be complete on everything that either party contends is of value? In addition to that, this very record was in, and made a part of, the case of the United States at the Paris Tribunal. The Commissioner on the part of the United States: -Lot me ask you these questions: We are authorized to receive all suitable, authentic testimony. Y"ou are offering here what is really hearsay evidence upon a certain proposition. Have not you a better class of evidence on that same proposition? Do you want to open the door which will afterwards be used to flood this Commission with an immense amount' of documentary evidence? We do not know how much there may be of it. Mr. Peters:—I submit that this whole record is proper evidence to be laid before this Tribunal. The record of the proceeding which the United States Government took against this ship and everything in that record. It is evidence which they themselves put forward, and which they themselves adopted in the most formal manner by adopting the condemnation made upon that evidence. There can be no better class of evidence. And if they come forward and allege and attempt to prove that such and such facts did exist, surely that can be used against them. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I did not intend to have you argue the admissibility of this evidence in the strict sense. I think that it is probably the view of the Commissioner's that whatever evidence goes in here, especially in consideration of the fact that there is a possibility of an umpire is largely under the control of Counsel on both sides. I think that is the view of the Commissioners, and we will sift it out to suit ourselves hereafter. My point was whether you deemed it necessary to open the door in this way. Do you consider that if A B .brings a suit against 0 D, and there is afterwards another suit between the same parties, that you can put into the second suit all the evidence that A B offered in the first suit? Mr. Peters:—1 e-annot altogether agree that it stands iu that position. I submit that in reality the proceedings here are but a continuation of the proceedings at the Paris Tribunal. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I did not intend on my part to ask you to argue it. The Commissioners are very much of the opinion that they have got to let Counsel control the evidence that will come in. Of course there jfllay be some things that the Commissioners Will seee are inadmissible . I merely ask you the question whether you are ntVt opening a very wide door. Mr. Peters:—I will say that, so far as we are concerned, it may possibly open the door in the way you suggest; but T can assure the Commissioners that it is not our intention to flood the Commission with a lot of evidence of that description. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—If ca IO 20 30 40 50 60 Si you open the door, the other side comes in that same door. Mr. Dickinson:—This applies to the habits of the fur-seal, and if it is material we can put in four volumes, your Honour, as to the habits of the fur seal, to show that Douglass is wrong. Now, reserving the objection. I submit as a way- out that .this testimony of Douglass1 be read and your Honours will see where we will come. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That leaves it very much like the case of a vessel in which I was concerned, where a tug-boat got her on the rocks, and the owner of the vessel claimed she was "hogged." We had a photograph showing she was not "hogged." The other side objected, and the Judge said, he would have to look at if to see whether it was admissible or not. However, we are both agreed that Counsel must prove their own case. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—And probably at a later stage we would be helped by fuller arguments on the law points involved as bearing on the evidence. Mr. Peters:—This is the statement he makes: J. H. Douglass being duly sworn deposes and says: Q. State your name, age and occupation.—A. J. H. Douglass; am over the age of 21 years; am a pilot in the revenue- marine service of the U. S., and have been so for seven years last past. I am now, and on the first of August, 1886, was, pilot on the revenue steamer "Corwin." Q. State what experience you have had in the fur-sealing business and your knowledge of the habits of the fur-seal.— A. I have been cruising for more than 15 years' off and on in Alaskan waters, .always as an officer or pilot, and have visited the Pribyloff Islands, St. Paul and St. George, several hundred times, and am perfectly familiar with the sealing business as conducted on those islands and understand the migrating habits of the fur-seal. From about the 1st of May to about the 1st of July of each year the fur-seal is migrating north through the Unimak and Akutan passes to these islands for breeding purposes. They go to no other place in the known world except these islands and Copper Islands for breeding purposes. After the breeding season of about a month they begin to migrate south, and until in November of each year are migrating south through Bering Sea. During this season from May till November the fur- seal are plenty in the waters adjacent to the Pribyloff Islands and are migrating to and from these islands, and are at all times very plenty between Unimak pass and said islands in a track about 30 miles-wide, which seems to be their highway to and from said islands. The schooner "Carolena" and .her boats when seized were directly in this tract. I was present at time of seizure. J. H. DOUGLASS. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of September, A. D. 1886, after having been read over by me to deponent. (SEAL.) ANDREW T. LEWIS, Clerk U. S. Dist. Court. Mr. Dickinson:—I suppose to preserve our rights, may it phrase your Honours, when a class of testimony which may embrace a great many volumes, is offered, we should interpose our view against it upon the record, very brieflly. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—This I understand is objected to. Mr Peters:—The next witness called is Thomas Singleton. He is asked to state his name and so forth. 52 io Thomas Singleton, being duly sworn, deposes and says: Q. State your name, age anel occupation.—A. Thomas Singleton; am over the age of 21 years; and am a seaman. Was employed on the steamer "Corwin" on the 1st day of August, 1886, when the "Carolena" was seized. I was sent on board the "Carolena" right after the seizure, and saw a number of dead fur-seal on deck, and some of them had fur on them. Saw also some fresh fur-seal skins in the boats. THOMAS SINGLETON. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 8th day of September, 1886. after having beeu read over bv me to deponent. (SEAL.) ANDREW T." LEWIS. Clerk U. S. Dist. Court. Mr. Peters:—I am putting this in to show that at that time they were actually catching seals, and I put it in as the best evidence we can get on . that point, for the reason that we can adduce no person on board at the time of seizure. Then I wish 20 - to put in an amended libel, page 22. For some reason the District Attorney for Alaska filed an amended libel. I wish to put that libel in. particularly referring to that part of It where it sets out what articles were seized. The statements set out in the amended libel are more full than in the original libel. On September 20th, 1886, was filed the following amended libel of information: 3«» I - IN THE I'NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AUGUST. SPECIAL TERM, 1886. To the Honorable Lafayette Dawson, .Judge of said District Court: The amended libel of information of M. I). Ball, attorney for the United States for the District of Alaska, who prosecutes on behalf of said United States, and being present here 4 in court in his own proper person, in Ihe name and on behalf of the said Unite'd States, alleges and informs as follows, to wit: That c. A. Abbey, an officer in the revenue marine service of the United States, duly commissioned by the- President of the' United States, in command of the United State's revenue cutter "Corwin," and now on special duty in the waters of the elistrict of Alaska, heretofore, to wit, on the 1st day of August, Inxi;, within the limits of Alaska Territory, and in the waters thereof, and within the civil anel judicial district eif Alaska, to wit, within tin- waters of that portion erf Bering Sea belonging to the United States and said district, on waters navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burden, seized the- schooner "Carolena," her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo, and furniture, being the property of some per- sort or persons unknown to said attorney. The; said property is more particularly described as follows, to wit: 1 schooner "Carolena," of Victoria, B.C., 4 canoes, 1 yawl, carpenter's tools, clock, chronometer, nautical instruments, ige sails and running gear, 2 anchors, ropes, twine, oars, paddles, rowlocks, etc.; lamps, tanks, provisions, 685 fur-seal skins, 12 pup seal skins, 1 hair seal skin, 4 rifles, 5 shotguns, and ammunition for same, and all other property found upon or appurtenant to said schooner. That said C A. Abbey was then and there duly commissioned and authorized by the proper department of the United States to make said seizure. That all of said property was then and there seized as forfeited to the United States for the following causes; So 10 20 3° 4° So 60 53 That said vessel, her captain, officers and crew were then and there found engaged in killing fur-seals within the limits of Alaska Territory, and in the waters thereof, in violalion of section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the LTnited States. That all the said property, after being seized as aforesaid, was brought into the port of Ounalaska, in said Territory, and delivered into the keeping or Isaac Anderson, a deputy U.S. marshal of this district, with the exception of the said arms and ammunition, which latter were brought into the port of Sitka, in said district, and turned over to the U. S. marshal of this district, and all of said property is now within the judicial district of Alaska, United States of America. And the said M. D. Ball, attorney as aforesaid, further informs and alleges: ■ That on the 1st day of August, 1886, James Blake and certain other persons whose names are to' said L1. S, attorney unknown, who were then and there engaged on board of the said schooner "Carolena," under the direction and by the authority of James Ogilvie, then and there master of saiel schooner, engaged in killing and did kill, in the Territory and District of Alaska, and in the waters thereof, to wit, 20 fur-. seals, in violation of section 1956 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in such cases made'and provided, That the said 685 fur-seal skins, 12 pup-seal skins, and 1 hair-seal skin, and other goods so seized on board of said ' schooner "Carolena" constituted the cargo of said schooner at the time of the killing of said fur-seals' and at the time of said seizure. And said attorney sail li that all and singular the premises were and are true and within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and of this honorable court, and that by reason thereof, and by force of the statutes in such cases made and provided, the aforementioned schooner, being a vessel of over 20 tons burden, and her said tackle, apparel, be>ais, cargo and furniture, became and are forfeited to the use of the LTnited States. Wherefore the said attorney prays that the usual process and moniiion of this honorable court issue in this behalf against said schooner and all said hereinbefore described property to enforce the forfeiture thereof, and requiring notice to be given to all persons to appear and show cause, on the return day of said process, why said forfeiture should not be decreed, and that after due proceedings are had, all of said property be adjudged, decreed, and condemned as forfeited to the use of the United States, and for such other relief as may be proper in the "premises. M. D. BALL. U. S. Dist. Attorney for the District of Alaska. Dated September 20th, 1886. I only put that in for the purpose of shewing in detail the articles which they themselves allege that they had seized. I do not propose to read the rest of the document because it is merely of a formal nature. Having read the part of the record that I deem material, I would like to refer the commissioners to that part of the correspondence which we deem material to this enquiry. I take that correspondence from the same executive document I have already referred to. Mr. Dickinson:—Between the Governments? Mlo^ Mr. .Pe;ters:—Between the Governments. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Now Mr. Peters I understood you to say that you intended to offer this en bloc after you got through reading it. Mr. Peters:—Yes, en bloc. I propose after I have read the L. correspondence to tender it en bloc as marked. My learned friend will probably note if there is any objection as I go along. In order to be sure to be correct I will refer to these by number, the reporter taking down the number so that there can be no mistake. No. 1 is a letter from Sir L. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard, dated the 27th of September, 1886: Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. Washington, September 27, 1886. (Received September 28.) Sir: I have the honor to inform you that Her Majesty's Government have received a telegram from the commander- imchief of Her Majesty's, naval forces on the Pacific station respecting the alleged seizure of three ' British Columbian seal schooners by the United States revenue cruiser "Corwin," and I am in consequence instructed to request to be furnished with any particulars whieh the United States Government may possess relative to this e>ccurrence. I have, etc., L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. 3° 40 5° 6o That letter was followed by number 2, October, 1886, and nearly a month having was answered. No. 2. dated the 21st of elapsed before it Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. Washington, October 21, 1886. (Received October 22.) Sir: With reference to my note of the 27th ultimo, requesting to be furnished with any particulars which the United States Government may possess relative to the seizure in the North Pacific waters of three British Columbian seal schooners by the United States revenue cruiser "Corwin," and to which I am without reply, I have the honor to inform you that I am now instructed by the Earl of Iddesleigh, Her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, to protest in the name of Her Majesty's Government against such seizure, and to reserve all rights to compensation. I have, etc., L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Then follows number 3, a letter from the Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir Sackville West, which is a lengthy letter, perhaps 1 had better read only part of it: No; 3. . ; -i Earl of Iddesleigh to Sir L. S. Sackville West. Foreign Office, October 30, 1886. Sir: Her Majesty's Government are still awaiting a. report on the result of the application which you were directed by my dispatch No. 181, of the 9th ultimo, to make to the Government of the United States for information in regard to the reported seizure by, the United States revenue cutter "Corwin" of three Canadian schooners while engaged in the pursuit of seals in Behring Sea. In -the meanwhile1, further details in regard to these seizures have been sent to this country, and Her Majesty's. Government now consider it incumbent on them to bring to the notice of the United States.Government the facts of the case as they have reached them from British sources. It appears that the three schooners, named respectively the "Carolena," the "Onward," and the "Thornton," were fitted out in Victoria, British Columbia, for the capture of seals in the Northern Pacific Ocean, adjacent to' Vancouver's Island, Queen Charlotte Islands, and Alaska. According to the depositions inclosed herewith from some of the.officers and men, these vessels were" engaged in the r IO 20- 30 40 60 55 capture of seals in the open sea, out of sight of. land, when they were taken possession of, on or about the 1st August last, by the United States revenue cutter "Corwin"—the "Carolina" in latitude 55:50 north, longitude, 168:53 west; the "Onward" in latitude 50:52 north, longitude 167:55 west; and, the "Thornton" in about the same latitude and longitude. They were all at a distance of more than sixty miles from the nearest land at the time of their seizure, and on being captured were towed by the "Corwin" to Ounalaska, where they are still detained.. The crews of the "Carolina" and "Thornton," with the exception of the captain and one man on each vessel detained at that port, were, it appears, sent by the steamer "St. Paul" to San Francisco, Cal., and then turned adrift, while the crew of the "Onward" were kept at Ounalaska. At the time of their seizure the "Carolina" had 686 seal skins on board, the "Thornton" 404, and the "Onward" 900, and these were detained, and would appear to be still kept at Ounalaska, along with the schooners, by the United States authorities. According to information given in the Alaskan, a newspaper published at Sitka, in the Territory of Alaska, and dated the 4th September, 1886. it is reported: (1.) That the master and mate of the schooner "Thornton" were brought for trial before Judge Dawson, in the United States District Court at Sitka, oni the 30th August last. (2) That the evidence given by the officers of the United States revenue cutter "Corwin" went to show that the "Thornton" was seized while in Behring Sea, about 60 or 70 miles south southeast of St. George's Island, for the offence of banting and killing seals within that part of Behring Sea which (it was alleged by the Alaskan newspaper) was ceded to the United States by Russia in 1867. (3) That the judge in his charge to the jury, after quoting the first article of the treaty of the 30th March, 1867, between Russia and the United States, in which the western boundary of Alaska is defined, wrent on to say: "All the waters within the boundary set forth in this treaty to the western end °f the Aleutian archipelago and chain of islands are to be considered as comprised within the waters-of Alaska, and all the penalties described by law against the killing of fur-bearing' animals' must, therefore, attach again'sf any violation of law within the limits heretofore described- If. therefore, the jury believe from the evidence that the defendants, by themselves or in conjunction with others, did, on or about the time charged in the information, kill any otter, mink, marten, sable or fur seal, or other fur-bearing aninial or animals on the shores of Alaska or in the Behring Sea east of 193 degrees of west longitude, the jury should find the defendants guilty, and assess their punishment separately at a fine of not less than |200 nor more than $1,000, or imprisonment not more than six months, or by both such fine (within the limits herein set forth) and imprisonment." (4) That the jury brought in a verdict of guilty against the prisoners, in accordance with which the master of the "Thornton," Hans Guttounsen, was sentenced to imprison ment for thirty days, and to pay a fine of $500; and the mate of the "Thornton." Norman, was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty days, and to pay a fine of $300; which terms of imprisonment are presumably now being carried into effect. There is also reason to believe that the masters and mates of the "Onward" and "Carolena" have since been tried and sentenced to undergo penalties similar to those now being inflicted on the master and mate of the "Thornton." You will observe, from the facts given above, that the authorities of the United States appear to lay Claim to the sole 20 40 6o sovereignty, of that part of Behring Sea lying east of the westerly boundary of Alaska, as defined in the first article of the treaty concluded between the United States and Russia in 1867, by which Alaska was ceded to the United States, and which includes a stretch of sea extending in its widest part some 600 or 700 miles easterly (westerly?) from the •mainland of Alaska. in' support of this claim, those authorities are alleged to nave interfered with the peaceful and lawful occupation of Canadian citizens on the high seas, to have taken possession of- their ships, to have subjected their property to forfeiture, and to have visited upon their persons the indignity of imprisonment. Such proceedings, if correctly reported, would appear to have been in violation of the admitted principles • of international law. I request that you wil.1, on the receipt of this dispatcb, seek an interview with Mr. Bayard, and make him acquainted ■ with- the nature of the information which Her Majesty's Government have been furnished respecting this matter, and ■state to him that they do not doubt that, if on enquiry it should prove to be correct, the Government of (he United States will, with their well known'sense of justice, at once admil the illegality of the proceedings resorted to against the British vessels and the British subjects above mentioned, and you will cause reasonable reparation to be made for the wrongs to which they have been subjected and for the losses which they have sustained. Should Mr. Bayard desire it,'you are authorized to leave with him a copy of this dispatch. I am, etc., IDDLESLEIGH. ■ Mr. Peters:—I will simply state that whilst it does bear to a certain extent on the facts found by the Paris Tribunal, it bears materially on certain questions before you. It bears ■ materially in one very clear respect. It is proper for us to shew here that we took every means to press our claims, and to press them promptly, and the whole correspondence from beginning to end brings that point out very clearly, and that point we have the right to shew; also the bona fide manner in which it was presented by the British Government from beginning to end. There has been nothing like laches in the presentation or prosecution of the claims. Mr. Dickinson:—And nothing of the kind is asserted or contended for. Mr. Peters:—He does assert in his pleadings that.we are* claiming an excessive amount of damages, and when you come to consider what that damage consists of it would become very apparent whether the fact that these claims were pressed promptly or not is a material matter for the Commission. I now refer to number 4, a letter from Mr. Bayard to Sir L S. West; dated November 12, 1886: IO 20 40 60 57 r- ■ no. 4. .'-f- Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S.West. Department of State, Washington, November 12, 1886. Sir: The'delay in my- reply to your letters of September 27 and October 21, asking for the information in my possession concerning the seizure by the United States revenue- cutter Corwin, in the Bering Sea, of British vessels, for an alleged violation of the laws of the United States in relation to the Alaskan seal fisheries, has been caused by my waiting to receive from the Treasury Department the information you desired. I tender the fact in apology for the delay and as the reason for my silence, and, repeating what I said verbally to you in our conversation this morning,, I am still waiting full and authentic reports of the judicial trial and judgment in the cases of the seizures^ referred to. My application to my colleague, the Attorney-General, to procure an authentic report of these proceedings was promptly made, and the delay in furnishing the report doubtless has arisen from the remoteness of the place' of trial.-\ So soon as I am enabled I will convey to you the facts as ascertained in the trial and the rulings of law as applied by the court. I take leave also to acknowledge your communication of the 21st of October, informing me that you had been instructed by the Earl of iddesleigh, Her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, to protest against the seizure of the vessels above referred to, and to reserve all rights of compensation. ■ All of which shall receive respectful consideration. I have, etc., T. F. BAYARD. I will point out to the Commission that although the first letter is written by Sir L. S. West on the 27th of September there is no answer given to it until the 12th of November. The next letter I propose to refer to is number 5, dated December 7th, 1886, from Sir L. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. It states: No. 5. Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. Washington, December 7, 1886. ' (Received December 8.) Sir: Referring to your note of the 12th inst (ultimo?) on 1 the subject of the seizure of British vessels in the Bering Sea, and promising to convey to me as soon as possible the facts as ascertained in the trial and the rulings of law as applied by the court, I have the honor to state that vessels are now, as usual, equipping in British Columbia for fishing in that Sea. The Canadian Government, therefore, in the tibsence of information, are desirous of ascertaining whether such vessels fishing in the open sea and beyond the. territorial waters of Alaska, would be exposed to seizure, and Her Majesty's Government'at the same time would be glad if some assurance would be given that, pending the settlement of the question, no such' seizures of British' vessels will be made in Be1 ring Sea. I have etc. L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. No. 6 is the next one: No. 6. Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. Washington, January 9, 1887. (Received January 10.) Sir: I have the honor to inform you that" I have received instructions from the Earl of Iddesleigh, Her Majesty's prin- 20 3° 4° So 60 cipal secretary of state for foreign affairs, again to bring to your notice the grave representations made by Her Majesty's Government respecting the seizure of the British vessels "Carolena," "Onward" and "Thornton" in Bering Sea by the United States cruiser "Corwin," to which no reply has as yet been received. On the 27th of September last I had the honor to address to you a note, in which I stated that Her Majesty's Government requested to be furnished with any particulars which the United States Government might possess relative to this occurrence. On the 21st of October last I had the honor to inform you that I was instructed by the Earl of Iddesleigh to protest in the name of Her Majesty's Government against such.seizures, and to reserve all rights as to compensation. In a note dated the 12th of November last you were good enough to explain the delay which had occurred in answering these communications, and on the same day I had the honor to communicate to you a dispatch from the Earl of Iddesleigh, a copy of which, at your request, I placed in your hands. On the 7th ultimo I again had the honor to address you, stating that-vessels were equipping in British-Columbia for fishing in Bering Sea, and that the- Canadian Government were desirous of ascertaining whether such vessels fishing in the open sea and beyond the territorial waters of Alaska would be exposed to seizure, and that Her Majesty's Government would be glad if some assurance could be given that pending the settlement of the questions no such seizures of British vessels would be made in -Bering Sea. The vessels in question were seized at a distance of more than 60 miles from the nearest land at the time of their seizure. The master of the "Thornton" was sentenced to imprisonment for thirty days, and to pay a fine of $500, and there is reason to believe that the masters of the "Onward" and "Carolena" have been sentenced to similar penalties. In support of this claim to jurisdiction over a stretch of sea extending in its widest part some 600 or 700 miles from the mainland, advanced by the judge in his charge to the jury, the authorities are alleged to have interfered with the peaceable and lawful occupation of Canadian citizens on the high seas; to have, subjected their property to forfeiture anel to have visited upon their persons the indignity of imprisonment. Such proceedings, therefore, if correctly reported, appear to have been in violation of the admitted principles of international law. Under these circumstances Her Majesty's Government do not hesitate to express their concern at not having received any reply to their representations, nor do they wish to conceal the grave nature which the case has thus assumed, and to which I am now instructed to call your immediate and most serious attention. It is unnecessary for me to allude, further to the information with which Her Majesty's Government have been furnished respecting these seizures of British vessels in the open seas, and which for some time past has been in the possession of the United States Government, because Her Majesty's Government do not doubt that if, on inquiry, it should prove to be correct, the Government of the United States, will, with their well-known sense of justice, admit the infegality of the proceedings resorted to against the British vessels and the British subjects above mentioned, and will cause reasonable reparation to be made for the wrongs to which they have been subjected and for the losses which they have sustained. In conclusion, I have the honor again to refer to your note of the 12th of November last, and to what you said verbally to me on the same day, and to express the hope that the cause of the delay complained of in answering the represent- IO 20 60 59 aliens of Her Majesty's Government on this grave and important matter may be speedily removed. I have, etc., L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Number 7 from Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. West, dated January 12, 1887: No. 7. Mr. Bayard to L. S. Sackville West. t Department of State, Washington, January 12, 1887. Sir: Your note of the 9th inst. was received by me on the next day, anel I regret exceedingly that, although my efforts have been diligently made to procure from Alaska the authenticated copies of the judicial proceedings in the cases of the British vessels "Carolena," "Onward," and "Thornton," to which you refer, I should not have been able to obtain them in time to have made the urgent and renewed application of the Earl of Iddesleigh superfluous. The pressing nature of your note constrains me to inform you that on September 27 last, when I received my first intimation from you that any question was possible as to the validity of the judicial proceedings referred to, I lost no time in requesting my colleague, the Attorney-General, in whose department the case is, to procure for me such authentic information as would enable me to make full response to your applie-arion. From week to week I have been awaiting the arrival of the papers, and to-day, at my request, the Attorney-General has 'telegraphed to Portland. Oregon, the nearest telegraph station to Sitka, in Alaska, in order to expedite the furnish- ing-of the desireel papers. You will understand that my wish to meejt the questions involved in the instructions you have received from your Government is averred, and that the delay has been enforced by the absence of requisite information as to the facts. The distance of ihe vessels from any land or the circumstances attendant upon thei r seizure are unknown to me save by the statements in your last note, and it is essential that sue-h facts should be devoid of all uncertainty. Of whatever information may be in the possession of Her Majesty's Government I have, of course, no knowledge or me-ans of knowledge, but this Department of the Government of the United States has not yet been placed in possession of that accurate information which would justify its decision in a question which you are certainly warranted in considering to be of grave importance. I shall diligently endeavor to procure the best evidence pe>ssible of the matters inquired of, and will make due response thereupon when the opportunity of decision is afforded to me. You. require no assurance that no avoidance of our international obligations need be apprehended. I have, etc. T. F. BAYARD. No. 8 is a short letter from Sir Sackville West to Mr. Bayard as fo'lows: No. 8. t Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. British Legation, Washington, February 1, 1887. (Received February 2.) Sir: With reference to your note of the 12th ultimo, I have the honor to inform you that under date of the 27th ultimo the Marquis of Salisbury instructs me to. inquire whether the information and papers relative to the seizure of the 20 3° 4° 5o 60 British schooners "Carolena," "Onward," and "Thornton' have reached the United States Government. I have, etc., L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. This is answered February 3rd by number 9, as follows: No. 9. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. Sackville West. Department of State, Washington, February 3, 1887. Sir: I beg to acknowledge your note of yesterday's date, received to-day. Upon its receipt I made instant application to my colleague, the Attorney-General, in relation to the record of the juelicial proceedings in the cases of the three British vessels arrested in August last in Bering Sea for violation of the United States laws regulating the Alaskan seal fisheries. I am informed that the documents in question left Sitka on the 26th of January, and may be expected to arrive at Port Townsend, in Washington Territory, about the 7th instant, so that the papers, in' the usual course of mail, should be received by me within a fortnight. In this connection I take occasion to inform you that, without conclusion at this time of any questions which may be found to be involved in these cases of seizure, orders have been issued by the President's direction for the discontinuance of all pending proceedings, the discharge of the vessels referred to, and the release of all persons under arrest in connection therewith. I have ,etc./- T. F. BAYARD. That statement is one which appears to me to be of considerable importance with regard to the very case we have under consideration. The statement was made on the 3rd February, 1887, that instructions had been issued for the release of the vessels seized of which the "Carolena" was one, and also of the persons then under arrest or who were supposed to be under arrest. The next letter is number 10 from Sir Sackville West to Mr. Bayard: No. 10. Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. Washington, February 4, 1887. (Received February 5.) Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the reeieipt of your note of the 3rd instant, informing me that without conclusion at this time of any questions which may be found to be involved in the cases of seizure of British vessels in Bering Sea, orders have been issued, by the President's direction, for the discontinuance of all pending proceedings, the discharge of the vessels referred to, and the release of all persons under arrest in connection therewith. I have, etc., L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. There was a distinct statement on the one side and the receipt of it acknowledged by the other on the 3rd of February, 1887, t^iat these vessels had actually been released by the President's border and hereafter the correspondence w:H show that that order for some extraordinary reason, although transmitted to th<£ proper official at Sitka, was treated as a matter of fact as a piece of waste paper, and was not acted upon for monthsiyand months afterwards. This may b | come of material consideration in this case, especially h\ re- 6t 10 20 39 40 SO 6© gard to the form in which my learned friend has drawn the answer to our claim. The next one is number 11, dated April 4th. No. 11. Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. Washington, April 4, 1887. (Received April 4.) Sir: In view of the approaching fishing season in Bering Sea and the fitting out of vessels for fishing operations in those waters, Her Majesty's Government have requested me to inquire whether the owners of such vessels may rely on being unmolested by the cruisers of the United States when not near land. Her Majesty's Government also desires to know whether the documents referred to in your note of the 3rd of February last connected with the seizure of certain British vessels beyond the three-mile limit and legal proceedings connected therewith have been received. And I have the honor therefore to request you to be good enough to enable me to reply to these inquiries on the part of Her Majesty's Government with as little delay as possible. I have, etc., L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. No. 12 from Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. West, dated April 12th. No. 12. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. Sackville West. Department of State, Washington, April 12, 1887. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge your note of the 4th instant relative, to the fisheries in Bering Sea, and inquiring whether the documents referred to in my note of February 3, relating to the cases of seizure in those waters of vessels charged with violating the laws of the United States regulating the killing of fur seals, had been received. The records of the judicial proceeelings in the cases in the district court in Alaska referred to, were only received at this department on Saturday last, and are now under examination. Mr. Peters:—I wish in passing to have it noted as a fact worthy of some consideration and as having some little weight in this matter, that although these documents were asked for way back in the year 1886, they were not received .at Washington until the 12th of April, 1887. Probably there is some explanation given in the official correspondence of the distance of the place and the trouble of getting at it, but it does appear to me that with a little more pushing those documents could have been obtained at a very much earlier date. Now, then, he goes on further. He says: The remoteness of the scene of the fur-seal fisheries and the special peculiarities of that industry have unavoidably delayed the Treasury officials in framing appropriate regulations and issuing orders to United States vessels to police the Alaskan waters for the protection of the fur-seals from indiscriminate slaughter and consequent speedy extermination. The laws of the United States in this behalf are contained in the Revised Statutes relating to Alaska, in sections 1956- 1971, and have been in force for upwards of seventeen years; and prior to the seizures of last summer but a single infraction is known to have occurred, and that was promptly punished. The question of instructions to Government vessels in re- I n gard to preventing the indiscriminate killing of fur-seals is now being considered, and I will inform you at the earliest day possible what has been decided, so that British and other vessels visiting the waters in question can govern themselves accordingly. I have, etc. T. F. BAYARD. Then he gives something about regulations with which we need not bother here. For the sake of reference I also refer, pages 14, 15 and 16, to the various statutes relating to seal fisheries in Alaska. I do not presume at all that it would be necessary that they should be printed in the record, but for the sake of reference they are there. SEC. 1954. The laws of the United States relating to customs, commerce and navigation, are extended to and over all the mainland, islands, and waters of the Territory ceded to the United States by the Emperor of Russia by treaty cbn- 20 eluded at Washington on the thirtieth day of March, A.D. one thousand eight hundred and sixty-seven, so far as the same may be applicable thereto. SEC. 1955. The President shall have the power to restrict and regulate or to prohibit the importation and use of firearms, ammunition and distilled spirits, into and within the Territory of Alaska; the exportation of the same from any other port or place in the United States, when destined to any port or place in that Territory, and all such arms, ammunition and distilled spirits, exported or attempted to be 3° exported from any port or place in the United States and destined for such Territory, in violation of any regulations that may be prescribed under this section, and all such arms, ammunition and distilled spirits, landed or attempted to be landed or used at any "port or place in the Territory,.in violation of such regulations shall be forfeited; and if the value of the same exceeds four hundred dollars the vessel upon which the same is found, or from which they have been landed, together with her tackle, apparel and furniture, and cargo, shall be forfeited; and any person willfully violating 4 such regulations shall be fined not more than five hundred, dollars or imprisoned not more than six months. Bonds may be required for a faithful observance of such regulations from the masters or owners of any vessel departing from any port in the United States having on board firearms, ammunition or distilled spirits, when such vessel is destined to any place in the Territory, or if not so destined, when there is reasonable ground of suspicion that such articles are intended to be laded therein in violation of law; and similar bonds may also be required on the landing of any such articles in the. Territory from the person to whom the same may be consigned. SEC. 1956. No person shall kill any otter, mink, marten, sable, or fur-seal, or other' fur-bearing animal, within the limits of Alaska Territory, or in the waters thereof; and every person guilty thereof shall, for each offense, be fined not less than two hundred dollars or more than one thousand dollars, or imprisonment not more than six months, or both; and all vessels, their tackle, apparel, furniture, and 60 cargo, found engaged in violation of this section shall be forfeited. But the Secretary of the Treasury shall have the poiwer to authorize the killing of any such' mink, marten, sable, or other fur-bearing animal, except fur-seals, under such regulations as he may prescribe; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary to prevent the killing of any fur-seal and to provide for. the execution of the provisions of this section until it is otherwise provided by law; nor shall he grant any special privileges under this section. So 63 to 20 30 40 so 6® SEC. 1957. Until otherwise provided by law, all violations of this chapter and of the several laws hereby extended to the Territory of Alaska and the waters thereof committed within the limits of the same, shall be prosecuted in any district court of the United States in California or Oregon, or in the district courts of Washington; and the collector and deputy-collectors appointed for Alaska Territory, and any person authorized in writing by either of them, or by the Secretary of the Treasury, shall have power to arrest persons and seize vessels and merchandise liable to fines, penalties or forfeitures under this and the other laws extended over the Territory, and to keep and deliver the same to the marshal of some one of such courts; and such courts shall have original jurisdiction, and may take cognizance of al cases arising under this act and the several laws hereby extended over this Territory, and shall proceed therein in the same manner and with the' like effect as if such cases had arisen within the district or territory where the proceedings are brought. SEC. 1958. In all cases of fine,penalty or forfeiture embraced in the act approved the third1 March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, chapter thirteen, or men-' tioned in any act in addition to or amendatory of such act, that have occurred or may occur in the collection district of Alaska, the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized, if, in his opinion, the fine, penalty or forfeiture was incurred without willful negligence or intention of fraud, to ascertain the facts in such manner and under such regulations as he may deem proper without regard to the provisions of the act above referred to, and upon the facts so to be ascertained he may exercise all the power of remission conferred upon him by that act, as fully as he might have done had such facts been ascertained under and according to the provisions of that act. SEC. 1959. The islands of Saint Paul and Saint George, in Alaska, are declared a special reservation for Government purposes; and until otherwise provided by law it shall be unlawful for any person to land or remain on either of those islands, except by the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury; and any person found on either of.those islands, contrary to the provisions hereof, shall be summarilyremoved; and it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War to erarry - fhis section into effect. SEC. 1960. It shall be unlawful to kill any fur seal upon the islands of Saint Paul and Saint George, or in the waters adjacent thereto, except during the months of June, July, September and October in each year; and it shall be unlawful to kill such seals at any time by the use of fire-arms, or by other means tending to drive the seals away from those islands, but the natives of the islands shall have the privilege of killing such young seals as may be necessary for their own foe>d and clothing during other months, and also such old Iseals as may be required for their own clothing and for the manufacture of boats for their own use; and the killing in such cases shall be limited and controlled by such regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury. SEC. 1961. It shall be unlawful to kill any female seal, or any seal less than one year old, at any season of the year, except as above provided; and it shali also be unlawful to kill any seal in the waters adjacent to the islands of Saint Paul and Saint George, or on the beaches, cliffs or rooks where they haul up from the sea to remain; and every person who violates the provisions of this or the preceding section •shall be punished for each offense by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars nor more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment; and all vessels, their tackle, apparel, and furniture, whose crews are found engaged in the YioJa» 20 40 6o tion of either this or the preceding section, shall be forfeited to the Unted States. SEC. 1962. For the period of twenty years from the first July, one thousand eight hundred and seventy, the number of fur seals which may be killed for their skins upon the island of Saint Paul is limited to seventy-five thousand per annum ; and the number of fur-seals which may be killed for their skins upon the island of Saint George is limited to twenty-five thousand per annum; but the Secretary of the Treasury may limit the right of killing, if it becomes necessary for the preservation of such seals, with such proportionate reduction of the rents reserved to the Government as may be proper; and every person who knowingly violates either of the provisions of this section shall be punished as provided in the preceding section. SEC. 1963. When the lease heretofore made by the Secretary of the Treasury to "The Alaska Commercial Company" of the right to engage in taking fur-seals on the islands of Saint Paul and Saint George, pursuant to the act of the first July, chapter one hundred and eighty-nine, or when any future similar lease expires, or is surrendered, forfeited or terminated, the Secretary shall lease to proper and responsible parties, for the best advantage of the United States, having due regard to the interests of the Government, the native inhabitants, their comfort, maintenance and education, as well as to the interests of the parties heretofore engaged in trade and the protection of the fisheries, the right of taking fur-seals on the islands herein named, and of sending a vessel or vessels to the islands for the skins of such seals, for the term of twenty years, at an annual rental of not less than fifty thousand dollars, to be reserved in such lease and secured by a deposit of United States bonds to that amount; and every such lease shall' be duly executed in duplicate, and shall not be transferable. SEC. 1964. The Secretary of the Treasury shall take from the lessees of such islands in all cases a bond, with securities, in a sum not less than five hundred thousand dollars, conditioned for the faithful observance of all the laws and requirements of Congress, and the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury touching the taking of fur-seals and the disposing of the same, and for the payment of all taxes and dues accruing to the United States connected therewith. SEC. 1965. No persons other than American citizens shall be permitted, by lease or otherwise, to occupy the islands of Saint Paul and Saint George, or either of them, for the purpose of taking the skins of fur-seals therefrom, nor shall any foreign vessels be engaged in taking such skins; and the Secretary of the Treasury shall vacate and declare any lease forfeited if the same be held or operated for' the use, benefit or advantage, directly or indirectly, of any persons other than American citizens. SEC. 1966. Every lease shall contain a covenant upon the part of the lessee that, he will not keep, sell, furnish, give or dispose of any distilled spirits or spirituous liquors on either of those islands to any of the natives thereof, such person not being a physician and furnishing the same for use as' medicine; and every revenue officer, officially acting as such on either of the islands, shall seize and destroy any distilled or spirituous liquors found thereon; but such officer shall make detailed reports of his doings in that matter to the collector of the port. SEC. 1967. Every person who kills any fur-seal on either of those islands, or in the waters adjacent thereto, without authority of the lessees ' thereof, and every person who molests, disturbs, or interferes with the lessees, or either of them, or their agents or employes, in the lawful prosecution of their business, under the provisions of this chapter, shall for each offense be punished as prescribed in IO 20 30 40 60 65 section 1961; and all vessels, their tackle, apparel, appurte-. nances and cargo, whose crews are found engaged in any violation of the provisions of sections 1965 to 1968, inclusive, shall be forfeited to the United States. SEC. 1968. If any person or company, under any lease herein authorized, knowingly kills, or permits to be killed, any number of seals exceeding the number for'each island jn this chapter prescribed, such person or company shall in addition to the penalties and forfeitures herein provided, forfeit the whole number of the skins of seals killed in that year, or, in case the same have been disposed of, then such person or company shall forfeit the value of the same. SEC. 1969. In addition to the annual rental required to be reserved in every lease, as provided in section nineteen hundred and sixty-three, a -revenue tax or duty of two dollars is laid upon each fur-seal skin taken and shipped from the islands of Saint Paul and Saint George during the continuance of any lease, to be paid into the Treasury of the United States; and the Secretary of the Treasury is empowered to make all needful regulations for the collection and payment of the same, and to secure the comfort, maintenance, education, and protection of the natives of those islands, and also to carry into full effect all the provisions of this chapter except as otherwise prescribed. SEC. 1970. The Secretary of the Treasury may terminate any lease given to any person, company or corporation on full and satisfactory proof of the violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or the regulations established by him. SEC. 1971. The lessees shall furnish to the several masters of vessels employed by them certified copies of the lease held by them respectively, which shall be presented to the Government revenue officer for the time being who may be in charge at the islands as the authority of the party for landing and taking skins. SEC. 1972. Congress may at any time hereafter alter, amend or repeal sections from nineteen hundred and sixty to nineteen hundred and seventy-one, both inclusive, of this chapter. SEC. 1973. The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to appoint one agent and three assistant agents, who shall be charged with the management of the seal fisheries in Alaska, and the performance of such other duties as may be assigned to them by the Secretary of the Treasury. SEC 1974. The agent shall receive the sum of ten dollars each day, one assistant agent the sum of eight dollars each day. and two assistant agents the sum of six dollars each day- while so employed; and they shall also be allowed their necessary travelling expenses in going to and returning from Alaska, for which expenses vouchers shall be presented to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury, and such expenses shall not exceed in the aggregate six hundred dollars each in any one year. SEC. 1975. Such agents shall never be interested, directly or indirectly, in any le»ase of the right to take- seals, nor in any proceeds or profits thereof, e'ither as owner, agent, partner, or otherwise. SEC. 1976. Such agents are empowered to administer oaths in all cases relating to the service of the T'niled States, and to take testimony in Alaska for the use of the Government in any matter concerning the public revenues. Number 13 is a letter from Sir L. S. West to Mr. Bayard as follows: No. 13. Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard.. Washington, July 8, 18S7. (Received July 9.) Sir: With reference to your note of the 12th April, stating that the records of the judicial proceedings in the cases of 20 3° 4Q So 60 the British vessels seized in the Bering Sea had been received, I have the honor to inform you that the Marquis of Salisbury has instructed me to request you to be good enough to furnish me with a copy of the same for the information of Her Majesty's Government. I have, etc., L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. Number 14 is a letter from Mr, Bayard to Sir L. S. West as follows: No. 11. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. Sackville West. Department of State. Washington, July 11, 1887. Sir: Complying with the request contained in your note of the 8th instant, conveyed to me under the instructions of your Governine'iit, I have the honor to inclose you two printed copies of the judicial proceedings in the United States district court for the I Hstriet of Alaska in the several cases of libel against the schooners "Onward," "Carolena," and "Thornton." for killing fur-seals in Alaskan waters. Aece'pt. etc, T. F. BAYARD. I will come to Number 18, dated the 29th of September, West to Bayard: No. 18. Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. British Legation, Washington, September 29, 1887. (Received September 29.) Sir: I have the honor to inform you that Her Majesty's Government have been officially informed that the British vessels, mentioned in your note of the 3rd of February last, have not been released, and that I am instructed to inquire the reason for the delay in complying with the orders sent to this effect, as stated in your above-mentioned note. I have, etc., L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. The foregoing referred to a statement made in a previous letter that the vessels had been released on the 3rd of April, 1887, and here is a letter on the 29th of September from West to Bayard recalling to his mind the letter of February 3rd and informing him erf the fact that the vessels had not been released. I now pass to number 21, dated October 8th, 1887, from Mr. Bayard to Mr. Garland: No. 21. Mr. Bayard to Mr. Garland. Department of State, Washington, October 8, 1887. Sir: With reference to the copy of your telegram of the 28th of January, which accompanied your letter of the 21st of May. 1887, to this Department, relative to the order issued by you for the release of the British sealing vessels "Carolena," "Onward," and iShornton," I have now the honor to inclose herewith, for your information, a copy of a note from Sir Lionel West, Her Britannic Majesty's minister at this capital, in which it is alleged that the vessels in question have not been released. In view of the fact that the minister was informed, on the 3rd of February last, that Ihe order for the discharge of the . vessels referred to had been issued, I shall feel much obliged IO 20 40 SO 60 67 if you will kindly cause this department to be furnished with such iformation as will enable me to reply fully to Sir Lionel West's note. J have, etc., T F. BAYARD. Then number 22, dated October 11th, 1887, wherein Mr. Bayard writes to-Sir L. S. West as follows: No. 22. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. Sackville West. Department of State, Washington, October 11, 1887. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge your note of the 29th ultimo, stating that Her Majesty's Government had been officially informed that the British vessels referred to in my note to you of the 3rd of February last had not been released, and asking the reason for the delay in complying with the orders of the Executive in that regard. Upon receiving your note I at once wrote to my colleague, the Attorney-General, as the head of the Department of Justice, in order that I might be enabled to reply satisfactorily to your inquiry. I am still without answer from him, which, when received, shall be promptly communicated to you. In the meantime, in acknowledging your note, I take occasion to state my impression that if the three vessels seized and ordered to be released have not been repossessed by their owners, it is not because of any hindrance on the part of any official of this Government, or failure to obey the order for release, but probably because of the remoteness of the locality (Sitka) where they were taken after arrest for adjudication, and the proceedings having been in rem, the owners have not seen proper to proceed to Alaska and repossess themselves of the property in question. Accejpt, sir, etc., T. F. BAYARD. I call the at ten 1 ion of the Commissioners to this letter. A very short time afterwards Mr. Bayard very properly, having found that his impression on that matter was entirely wrong, had to admit and did admit that the delay was caused by an official of the United States. Number 24 is the next one to which I will refer. It is from Mr. Garland to Mr. Bayard, dated October 12th: No. 24. Mr. Garland to Mr. Bayard. Department of Justice, Washington, October 12, 1887. (Received October 13.) Sir: In reply to your letter of the 3rd instant, inclosing copy of letter from Hon. L. S. Sackville West, with reference to the vessels "Carolena," "Onward," and "Thornton," yesterday I received a letter from the marshal, Barton Atkins, stating in substance that my telegram of the 26th of January had been thought to be not genuine, and had not been acted upon. To-day I sent him the following telegram: "As the seal skins at San Francisco are perishable, have sale made. Thirty days' leave is granted for that purpose. Let the vessels "Carolena," "Onward," and "Thornton" be released, as ordered in mine of the 26th- of January ultimo. "I trust this will be obeyed and the vessels released as directed. "Yours, etc., "A. H. GARLAND, "Attorney-General." L II If ill I If K It seems rather strange when the Marshal at Sitka had received a telegram from the Attorney-General of the United States ordering the release of these vessels, as to the authenticity of which he had some doubt, he did not telegraph 1he Attorney-General and ask whether or not it was genuine Instead of doing that he paid no attention to it whatever and does not, so far as the correspondence appears, acknowledge in any way the receipt of the telegram, or take any steps whatever in regard to the release of the vessels, the consequence being that these vessels were detained for fcuch a length of time that they became absolutely of no use whatever and finally were completely lost. Then Number 25, Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. West, dated October 13, 1887: No. 25. 20 30 40 SO 60 Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. Sackville West. >, as had - my the j Department of State, Washington, October 13, 1887. Sir: Continuing my reply to your note of the 29th ultimo, inquiring the reason for the delay in complying with the order issued in January last for the release of British vessels seized last year in Bering Sea, I beg leave to inform you that I have this day received a communication from my colleague, the Attorney-General, informing me that his telegram to the United States marshal at Sitka, of January 26 last, ordering the release of the British schooners "Onward," 'Carolena, and "Thornton," owing to some misconception and mistake on the part of the official to whom it has been addressed, had. not been acted upon. A renewed order has gone forward for their release has been distinctly directed last January, and which I no reason to doubt had been promptly obeyed. In my note to vou of the 11th instant, I stated it to b< impression that no hindrance to their repossession by owners of the vessels named existed. This impression it now appears was not well founded; and as my object is to give you the fullest information within my power in relation to all' transactions touched in our correspondence, I hasten to communicate the latest report made to me from the Department of Justice. I take leave also to express my regret that any miscohcep- tion of the intentions and orders of the President should have delayed their prompt execution. I have, etc., T. F. BAYrARD. I will refer shortly to letter number 27, Bayard to Garland, as follows. No. 27. H (Extract.) Department of State, Washington, October 13, 1887. Sir: I beg to acknowledge your communication of yesterday's date, by which I am surprised to learn of the failure ot the United States marshal at Sitka to obey the instruction of the President of January 26 last, for the immediate release of the British sealers "Onward," "Carolena," and "Thornton." I have felt it to be my duty at once to communicate this information to the British minister at this capital. I have, etc., T. F. BAYARD, Also to letter number 28, Garland to B trd; 10 20 4° SO 60 69 Ne Mr. Garland to Mr. Bayard. Department of Justice, Washington, October 15, 1887. (Received October 17.) Sir:—I have the honor to say, in reply to your letter of the 13th instant, in relation to the release of the vessels "Carolena," "Onward,", and "Thornton," that before your request was received I had repeated the instructions by telegraph to the marshal for Alaska, and since its receipt have, as you suggested, supplemented the telegram' by a letter, both of these communications directing that the instructions of January last be carried out. Very respectfully, A. H. GARLAND. Then I will proceed to letter number 36, being a note from Sir Sackville West to Mr. Bayard, as follows: No. 36. Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. (Note Verbale.) Her Majesty's Government have just received the particulars of the claims for compensation on account of British sealers seized and warned off by the United States authorities in Bering Sea. A just assessment of these claims appears to them difficult without investigation and verification, and they therefore wish to ascertain whether the United States Government would be disposed to agree to a mixed commission, to be restricted to inquiring in each case whether compensation is due and the amount of such compensation. Washington, April IS, 1888. Number 37 lows: is a letter from Mr. Bayard to Mr. West, as fol- No. 37. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. Sackville West. (Note Verbale.) Department of State, Washington, April 21, 18SS. Responding to the note verbale of Sir Lionel West, dated the 18th instant, it is suggested on behalf of the United States that, as the cases of seizure of British vessels in Bering Sea, therein referred to. are now in court pending an appeal from a judicial decision, it is preferable to await the judgment of the appellate court in the premises. Mr. Peters:—That is all the correspondence I propose to refer to as contained in this executive document number 106. I also wish to refer to a letter contained in the case of Great Britain; I am reading from the American re-print. For the sake of convenience, I propose all through to refer to the American re-print of these documents. The letter I refer to is in Vol. V., page 64, a letter from M. D. Ball, United States District Attorney, dated September 20, 1886, to Honourable A. P. Swineford, Governor of Alaska, referring particularly to the cases of the "Carolena" and the "Thornton." He says: "There are now lying at Ounalaska three English schooners seized for violation of our laws against killing fur bearing animals within the territory. The cargoes of these and one other schooner, consisting of over 2000 seal skins forfeited under these laws, are stored at the same place. Under the necessary proceedings in our court these vessels and 20 3° their cargoes have been decreed forfeited, and the marshal will be required to sell them. He is absolutely without the means of getting to Ounalaska at all unless he goes by way of San Francisco, and can only carry out. the orders of the Court at the most serious inconvenience." I Bimply put that in to shew that they themselves point out and bring clearly before their own authorities the great difficulty and trouble in getting to this place where these vessels were lying—the inaccessibility of the place. That may be material hereafter on the question of the damage to the ship. Tiiis was with reference to the "Carolena," the "Thornton" and the "Onward." I wish now to bring before the Commissioners and to afterwards put in evidence a map which was put in in the United States case, Volume 3, Map number 5. It is a map shewing the position of sealing vessels seized or warned by the Government of the United States during the seasons of 1886, 1887 tind 1SS9, and on that map, will be found laid down the exact position of the seizure of the "Carolena." With your Honours' permission I will shew you that position on the chart. (Chart shown- Commissioners). I bring to your attention the fact that this document purports to have been prepared at the office of the United States Coast and Geographic Survey in the Official Reports of the State Department. Mr. Dickinson:—We accept it as authentic. Mr. Peters:—I may state whilst I am addressing the Commission at this time that the correspondence I have read refers equally to all the cases in 1886 with this difference, the only addition will be in the* other cases that the record which will be put in evidence will be of course the record applicable to that case. "We have all the records here. The rest of the correspondence we think will be applicable to each case. Now, having made these remarks and having read that evidence we propose to call our witnesses to give their evielence viva voce relating to all the damage which we propose to submit before the Tribunal. I do not think that anything would be gained by my specifically stating all the items of damage because they will make themselves clear as the witnesses are examined. One matter I wish to bring to the attention of the Commission, we have a witness here named Marketich. Mr. Marketich was mate on board the "Onward" when she was seized in 1886. He resides as a matter of fact some where up the West Coast, a very considerable distance from here. The steamer by which he goes to his home leaves here to-night, and if he is detained here after to-night it will be for nearly three weeks, which to a man in his atation would be a great, inconvenience and expense. His evidence- relates to what took place in 1886 when he was mate of the "Onward." I have spoken to my learned friend, and suggested that under the circumstances, even if a little out of order, I might be allowed to examine Mr. Marketich at once, so he might leave to-night. If that meets the approval of the Commissioners, I will proceed to call him before calling Mr. Munsie, the main witness on the "Carolena." go The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Peters hadn't you better make your tender of this evidence. Mr. Peters:—I tender in evidence the letters I have referred to per the numbers given, the portion of the record 1 have referred to, the extract from Mr. Ball's letter also rfe ferred to, and the chart. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Those are in subject to objection. 10 20 3° 4° 60 n John Marketich—Called on the part of Her Britannic Ma-. jesty. The witness having been duly sworn testified in answer to interrogatories hy Mr. Peters as follows:— Q.—What is your name? A.—John Marketich. Q.—Mr. Marketich, where do you live? A.—Eucalut. Q.—That is on the west coast of Vancouver? A.—The west side. Q.—I believe there is a steamer goes down there is there? A.—Yes sir. Q.—Does she leave to-night? A.—Leaves to-night. Q.—When will the next steamer leave? A.—Fifteenth. Q.—Fifteenth of December? A.—This month, December. Q.—Do you carry on business at Eucalut? A.—Yes sir. Q.—What is your business there? A.—Keep a store, trading amongst the Indians. Q.—Were you on board the "Onward" in the year 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what capacity? A.—A mate and interpreter. Q.—You have been there for many years? A.—Thirty- five years. The Commisioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Of what nationality is the witness? Mr. Peters:—He is a German, I think (to witness) what nation do you belong to? A.—Austria. Q.—You were on board the "Onward" in 1886 as mate and interpreter? A.—Yes sir. Q.—And you were on her when she was seized? A.—Y'es sir. Q.—Do you remember what time you went into the Behring Sea in that year? A.—Well, it was a long time ago, I have forgot, I think it was some time in July. Q.—Do you remember when you were seized? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What day were you seized? A.—The second August —morning—six o'clock. Q.—What crew had you on board? A.—Indians. Q.—How many Indians? A.—Sixteen. Q.—How many white men? A.—Four. Q.—Was that beside the captain and you? A.—Altogether. Q.—How many canoes did you carry? A.—Eight. Q.—How many boats? A.—One. Q.—Was that a regular sealing boat, or the ship's boat? A.—No sir. belonged to the schooner. Q.—What is called the ship's boat? A.—Yes, sir, ship's boat. Q.—Did any of the white men hunt? A.—No sir. Q.—All the.hunting was done by the Indians? A.—Indians. Q.—You had been sealing before you went into Behring Sea, on what is called the Coast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you catch many seals there? A.—Caught between five and six hundred. Q.—Did you take those seals into Behring Sea with you? A.—No sir. . Q.—What did you do with the seals that you caught on the Coast? A.—Left them on the West Coast. Q.—To be sent to Victoria? A.—Yes sir. Q.—So that you went into Behring Sea without any seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, when you were caught how many seals had you? A.—Got four hundred on board. Q-—That was in the morning that you were seized? A.— In the morning, six o'clock. Q.—Did you catch any seals that day? A.—No, sir. 72 IO 20 40 60 Q. Were the boats out when you were caught? A.—No, sir; they were aboard. Q.—And the canoes were aboard? A.—Y'es, sir. Q._Was it a good sealing day? A.—Y'es, sir, very fine in the forenoon; afterwards very thick fog. Q.—in the forenoon was a very fine day? A.—Very fine, a good sealing day. q. What were you doing when the "Corwin" came along. A.—We were all ready to lower the canoes. Q_Were there seals in sight? A.—There were lots of seals around. Q.—How many did you catch the day before? A.—Got something like one hundred. Q.—And that day, you say, was a good sealing day, the second? A.—The second day would be very good, the forenoon. The afternoon woiikl be very thick fog. Q.—Now, what happened when the "Corwin' •;.'uue alongside? A.—She ask us "Wuat you d<> ihere." Q.—Did they come on board? A.—No, sir. Q_They hailed you? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And asked you what you was doing there? A.—Yes, sir. .. „ Q—What did the captain say? A.—He says Sealing. He says "Have vou got any seals on board?" He says "Yes, sir." "How many?" "Four hundred." "Well," he says, "I seize you," and "he lower a boat and he come aboard. Q._What happened then? A.—Put a line around, fastened to the bow of the schooner, and come back alongside the "Corwin." q _So that if I understand you right, he came aboard, tas- tened a tow line to the bow erf the "Onward," and then put three men on board, and they started to tow? A.—Told us to go down below. q. WTho did he say to go down below? -V.—The crew of the vessel. q.—All the crew of the vessel? A.—Y'es, sir. q.—Were you included in that? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Did he speak to the captain also? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Did you go below? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Had they another vessel in tow at that time? A.— Thev had two. \ q!—That is the "Carolena" and "Thornton"? A,—Ihe •'Carolena" and the "Thornton." q.—what happened then? A.—They took us to Ounalaska. Q.—How many men did you say they put on board your schooner? A.—Three men. Q— And an officer? A.—One officer and two men. Q.—Having got you to Alaska, what happened? A.—They let go anchor themselves, lowered canoes and boats, and took them ashore. q.—And left you on board? A.—Left us on board. Q.—Were the' canoes brought back to the vessel? A.— No, sir. Q.—Or the boat? A.—No, sir. Q.—They were taken away altogether? A.—Altogether. Q.—What did the cutter do? A.—Laid alongside. Q.—Howmr off? A.—Oh, about 100 yards. Q.—Well, how long did you stay that way? About 10 days. Q.—During that time had you communication with the shore? A.—Well, I was once ashore. Q.—Why didn't you go. ashore? A.—He told us we could only go four men at each time. Q.—You were ashore once? A—I was ashore once. Q.—During that ten days? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—After you had been kept there for ten days what happened? A.—Well, one day Lieutenant come alongside, and IO 20 30 he asked what provision we had on board, he told me to take some provision and pass aboard the schooner "San Diego." Q.—That was an American schooner? A.—Yres, sir. Q.—Also seized? A.—She was seized too. Q.—You was to take the provision from your ship and put it aboard the schooner "San Diego?" A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—For how many men? A.—The whole crew. Q.—For how long? A.—For 10 days or 12 days. Q.—Did you do that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You took your provisions and put them on the "San Diego;" what was done then? A.—He told me to take my Indians and go aboard the schooner "San Diego." Q.—Did you do that? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—So that the whole of you were on the "San Diego," white men and all? A.—Three white men and Indians. (J.—Were there any other men on board the "San Diego?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many? A.—I have forgot. The crew of the '•'San Diego" was a ivhite crew. Q.—You don't remember how many? A.—I forget it. Q.—Were there two crews then put on board the "San Diego?" A.—Only one. Q.—You were all placed on board this ship and taken away? A.—Taken to Sitka. Q.—Your own ship was left there at Ounalaska? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And were the "Carolena" and "Thornton" left there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the crews were taken to Sitka ? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And your crew were taken up by the "San Diego"? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—What sort of accommodations did you have on the way up to Sitka? A.—Very poor, the vessel leaked, and was half full of water; a very olel vessel. Q.—What sized cabin did "they have? A.—Well, very small. Q.—How many men were kept in it? A.—About thirty men. Q.—For instance, what sleeping accommodation did you have? A.—Slept on the floor and sometimes on the deck. Q.—Did vou have anything to sleep on? A.—My own blankets. Q.—Anything in the way of a mattress? A.—No, sir. Q.—Or a hammock? A.—No, sir. Q.—Y'ou had to sleep on the floor? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many days were you going to Sitka? A.—Twelve days. Q.—Was that a comfortable voyage? A.—Oh no, oh no. 56 Very hard. Q.—And when you got to Sitka, what did they do with you? A.—They told us to go ashore and to sleep in the barracks. Q.—What were these barracks? A.—We stayed there for two days and— Q.—You were taken to the barracks first? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—How many wee taken there? A.—All the crew of whites except two men. Q.—What became of the Indians? A.—They let them go. Q.—How many men went to the barracks' A.—Eight. Q.—How many rooms did you have to sleep in there? A.— One. Q.—For the whole of you? A.—For the whole of us. Q.—What sleeping accommodation had you there? A.— We slept on the floor. Q.—Anything like a mattress or hammock given you? A. —No, sir. Q.—Did you supply your own blankets? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How did they feed you there? A.—Very poor. 40 60 every sir. sir. 30 40 60 Q.—How day. Q.—Where were you fed? A.—In the same room. Q.—So then, you slept and ate in the same room, and say you had only two meals a day? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You wouldn't do much sealing on that would —No. Q.—How long did you stay there? A.—One mont Q.—Were all those men there one. month? A.—Yes, Q.—Were you taken up before the Court? A.—Yes, Before I got into gaol. Q.—Did they Q.—And you were sent to gaol for a month? A.—Ye; Q.—And you stayed that month in gaol? A.—Yes, 1 Q-—When you got out of gaol what did you do? A.—I come the next morning on board a schooner for Victoria. Q.—So that so far as you were concerned you were actually present in those barracks for one month on two meals a day and eight men in the same room? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—How large was the room? A.—Ten by twelve, the room we slept in. Q.—Was it a high room or a low? A.—Pretty high. Q.—And that was the room you were confined in, eight of yon, for a month? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, when you were before the Court, what did they call you there? A.—Call me robbers. Q.VWho called you robbers? A—The Judge. Q.—Who was the Judge? A.—I forget his name, he is dead now. Q.—The name he called you by was robbers? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did he call you that more than once? A.—Two or three times. Robbing seals from American waters. Q.—That was the history of it so far as you were cerned? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were taken there, kept in gao came down to Victoria? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—Who paid your expenses down? come from Victoria. Q.—Had you any money with you? Q.—You had some money with you? con- a month, and then A.—Some money A.—Y'es, sir. What became o your money? A.—The Indians at Sitka, I gave the money to my Indians to buy bread. Q.—And you gave them your money? A,—I throwed it down to them—part—through the window. Q.—How much money did you give to the Indians? A.— Something between $10 and $15. Q.—Now I want, leaving your own case for a moment, you to be kind enough to tell me, we will take your own vessel first, who was the capf|An? A.—Captain Daniel Munro. Q.—Will you tell me the names of the white men that were on board the ship? A.—I couldn't; I have forgot; it is so long ago I have forgot it. One is here in town now, named Tommy. Q.—You don't remember the names of the men? A.—No. Q.—Do you remember the names of the men who were present with you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Who were thev? A.—Myself, Captain Hansen. Q._Was Mr. Blake there? Yes, sir. Q.—Where was he from, which ship? A.—The lena." Q.—Was Captain Ogilvie there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—He was of the "Carolena"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was Thompson there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was he doing? A.—Master of the Q.—Was Norman there, Harry Norman? A the mate of the "Thornton." "Caro- Thornton." -That was Q.—He was there? .V —He was there. Q.—And you have mentioned the others, James Ogilvie and James Blake? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Those are the men who were present with you? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Now, will you kindly tell me, having done with your own actual case, what happened to Captain Ogilvie? A.— He run into the bush. Q.—He went away one morning, that was the last you 10 saw? A.—Yes, sir. (j—Had he been found before you left? A.—After I left Sitka. Q.—Were these other men kept there for the same time that you were? A.—Yes. Q.—All for a month? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did they all-have the same treatment you did? A.— All the same treatment. Q.—How much did you pay to get from Sitka? A.—$35. Q.—That is te> the West Coast where you lived? A.—No, 20 to Victoria. Q.—You lived at Victoria then, did you? A.—I live in Victoria and then I go right to the West Coast. Q.—How much did it cost to get from Victoria to the West Coast? A.—Well, about $7. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—What does he mean by the West Coast. Mr. Peters:—West coast of Vancouver, is it. A.—Euca- 30 hit—Barclay Sound. Q.—Had you a family, Mr. Marketich? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where did they live at that time? A.—No, I hadn't a family at that time. Q.—Got one since? A.—Got one since. Q.—You want the money all the more now? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Could you give me the number of the men who were on board the "Carolena"? A.—No, sir; they had a white crew; I couldn't tell you. -1° Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson. Q.—Mr. Marketich, you are an Austrian? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you become a citizen of Great Britain or of the United States? A.—Great Britain. G.—When? A.—Oh, about six years ago. . Q.—Since the seizure? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And since your arrest and confinement in gaol? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—You call the gaol and the barracks the same thing? A.—Some call it the gaol and some the barracks. Q.—You mean the same thing when you say the barracks and the gaol? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Is it the same building in which you were tried? A.— Same building. Q.—The court house? A.—Yes, sir Q.—The finest buihling in Alaska? A.—Square timbered building. Q.—The best building in Alaska, isn't it? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And the room where you slept in or were confined in g you say is a room just over the judge's rooni? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The jury room? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Aren't you mistaken as to the size of that jury room? Ten by twelve? A.—Oh, I am not taking the size. Q.—Did you see any grates to the window, any iron grates? A.—No, sir; I have forgotten. Q.—And when you say you were confined in gaol, you mean you were confined in the jury room in the court house? A.—They call it there a gaol. Q.—Were the doors locked on you9 A.—Guard over us. 20 3° 4o $o 60 ■ Q.—Were the doors locked over you? A.—Could get on the verandah, that's all. Q.^-Weren't you permitted to go about Sitka before the trial as you pleased? A.—Before the trial. Q.—You went all about as you chose? A.—One day walked around. Q.—Only one day? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Weren't you permitted to walk around every day in Sitka before the trial? A.—No, sir; before the trial one day, what I said. Q.—After your arrival at Sitka were you shut up in gaol as you said a moment ago? A.—Well, the court house. Q.—Weren't you permitted to go about after your arrival in Sitka before the trial ? A.—Before we got tried, one day. Q.—Where were you confined in the meantime? A.—We Walked about there one day, arounel Sitka. Q.—The other days before the trial? A.—Into court, got into gaol and they kept us there. Q.—They kept you in the court house all the time? A.— Y'es, sir. Q.—Lock turned on you? A.—Door not be locked. Q.—Now, the captain of the "Carolena"—Captain Ogilvie —went out? A.—He run away. Q.—In the day time? A.—Morning. Q.—No guard attempted to stop him? A.—Because he didn't know exactly what he was doing. Q.—This is in the morning? A.—About six o'clock. <j.—Was this after you had been in court and had been sentenced? A.—Before going into court. Q.—Y'ou saw him go away? A.—I saw him go away. Q.—The door wasn't locked? A.—No, sir. Q.—And the guard didn't stop him? A.—No, sir. Q.—And were you then confined in this jury room sleeping on the floor? A.—I slept on the floor. Q.—And Ogilvie in the same room? A.—All in the same room. Q.—And were there any of the crew of the "San Diego" with you? A.—Two. Q.—Americans? A.—Two. Q.—Who were they? A.—The captain and the mate. Q.—Who was the captain? A.—Captain Raynor. Q.—-Did they have to sleep on the floor, too? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Weren't you all permitted to bring you bedding from ihe ship? A.—We got no bedding. Q.—Weren't you told to bring all the bedding you chose? A.—They told us to bring blankets up. Q.—Y'ou were permitted to bring those up? A.—Y'es. Q.—And the only reason you didn't bring a mattress was you couldn't pack it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Y'ou went to the ship and got what you wanted, did you? A.—Yes, sir; our own clothes. Q.—Now, witness, were you confined in that place after your trial for thirty days? A.—They kept us there in jail all the time one month. Q.—Didn't you go out after fifteen days? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you get enough to eat? A.—No, sir. Q.—What did they give you? A.—Salt salmon and venison. Q.—Did they make any difference between the treatment of yourself anel the prisoners of the "San Diego"? Did thev treat you all alike? A.—All alike. Q.—Your captain was Captain Munroe? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Who were your owners? A.—Captain Spring. Q.—Anyone else? A.—I don't know. Q.—Did you ever hear of McLean owning anything in the ship? A.—I know of his being the captain of the "Favourite." to 30 77 Q.—Y'ou didn't know you had any other owner than Spring? A.—I know Captain Spring, that is all I know of. Q.—Did you employ Indians yourself, is that a part of your duty as mate? A.—No, sir. Q.—Who empioyed the Indians? A.—The owner. Q.—Who paid them? Settled with them? A.—When they come to Victoria; got pay when they come back. Q.—Who bought the supplies for your ship? A.—The owner. Q.—Did you have anything to do with it? A.—No, sir. Q.—Or with the board of the Indians? A.—No, sir. Q.—Where was Captain Munro when the Indians came to you? A.—Munro the captain of the vessel. Q.—Wasn't he arrested? A.—He was arrested. Q.—Was he in the same jury room with you? A.—Yes, sir- Q.—And the Indians came to you for money to buy bread? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Did they ask the captain for any money to buy bread? 20 A.—They asked the captain and he got no money. Q.—Now, witness, don't you know that those Indians were paid by the United States Marshal—furnished with their meals—do you know anything about it yourself? A.—I don't. Q.—They came and asked you for money, and you gave it to them? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you e-ver before? A.—No, sir; not before. Q.—This was not a part of your duty? A.—No, sir. Q.—Nor done by you before? A.—No sir. Q.—Did they come to your captain for money? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Didn't he have any? A.-—He got no money at that time. Q.—Did you say you gave the money in Alaska? A.—My own money, a few dollars. Q.—Was your captain Avith you at the time? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Didn't they ask him? A.—No, sir. Q.—But only asked you? A.—They asked me because the captain couldn't speak. Q.—Did you (urn to the captain and say, these Indians want money? A.—I told him so. Q.—What did he say? A.—He say he don't care. Q.—And so you gave that money? A.—I gave them some. Q.—And you can't tell, witness, whether those Indians were boarded at the hotel by the United States or whether they were furnished abundance of food? A.—No, sir. Q.—You don't know anything about it? A.—No, sir. Q.—And all you mean to be understood as saying is that they asked you for money and you gave it to them? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Y'ou never did it before or since to an Indian, did you? A.—No. sir. Q.—Now, would not they let you go ashore only four at a time after they towed you into this place? A.—Four at a time. Q.—And you only had four white men on your ship, had you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—So that they let you all go on shore at a time? A.— White men and Indians—four at a time. Q.—When you were arrested you were all sent below? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—What was below? A.—The cabin. Q.—Were you put in irons or hurt in any way? A.— No, sir. Q,—Only an officer and two men were put on board the* ship to man the ship? A.—Y'es, sir, 40 6o 3° 4Q So 60 Q.—And you were sent into the comfortable quarters- of the cabin? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were the Indians put in with you? A.—The Indians didn't go below. Q.—So that the hardship was in sending you four men down into the saloon? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When you were sent below you were sent into the officers' cabin of the ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the Indians were left above.? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—Now, yon say the Indians were all put onto the "San Diego" afterwards? A.-*-Yes, sir. Q.—With you four men? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And how many men were on the "San Diego" when you arrived there? A.—I forgot now; got white crew, white hunters. Q.—Did they all remain on, too? A.—All go into Sitka. Q.—Did you count the number of men on her? A.—I no count them. Q.—How large was the "San Diego"? A.—I suppose about 60 tons. Q.—And your ship was how large? A.—Oh, she be about 60 tons. Q.—Sixty tons? A.—Something like that. Q.—You say the tonnage of the "Onward" was 60 tons? A.—Well, I don't know about tons. Q.—Was the "San Diego" twice as large as the "Onward" ? A.—No, sir; little biggest. Q.—Do you know anything about the size of vessels? A.— Well, I don't know about size. &a^|| Q.—You couldn't tell by looking at a ship her tonnage? A.—Well, I suppose the "San Diego" might be 70 tons. q.—Can you tell about the ship on which you sailed, her tonnage? A.—No, sir. Q.—Yon couldn't tell what her tonnage was, having sailed with and seen her?- A.—Carrying about 60 tons. . Q.—When you speak of the "San Diego" as being of a carrying capacity, do you mean that she has a tonnage of 70 tons or a carrying capacity of 70 tons? A.—Carry 70 tons, something like that. , Q.—Were you very badly treated on the "San Diego." A. —Oh, not bad treated; got our own grub. Q.—You bought it, you mean? A.—I took it from my own schooner. Q.—Did you have pretty good supplies on the "Onward"? A.—Got enough to keep us for ten days. Q.—Was it of a good kind? A.—Yes. Q.—First class? A.—First class. Q.—Didn't you get better supplies and better food in Sitka than you got on your own ship? A.—No, sir. Q.—Wasn't the "Onward" furnished with a very poor class of supplies? A.—Got any kind of preserves and bacon on the "Onward." Q.—And you had good supplies on the "Onward"? A.—■ Good supplies. Q.—As good as any sailing vessel that was out? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Did you get as good supplies in the gaol you speak of as on the "Onward"? A —No, sir. Q.—Did Captain Raynor remain 011 the "San Diego" when you went on her? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And was confined with you ? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And just as comfortable as yon? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Fed with the same sort of food? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you have any cook? A.—Some woman cooked for all. Q.—Did they cook the "San Diego" supplies separate from the "Onward" supplies? A.—No, sir. Q.—Cooked the same supplies and ate at the same table. to 20 30 40 60 79 You mean to be understood that the "San Diego" men, Cap: tain Raynor anel his men, lived on the "Onward" supplies after they were brought aboard? A.—Oh, I don't say that. Q.—You state you took the "Onward" supplies onto the "San Diego"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you gave us to understand that you were fed on the "Onward's" supplies on the "San Diego"; that one cook cooked for you afl, and yem didn't know where the supplies came from that the cook cooked? A.—Well, no sir. Q.—Were you out in 1885 on the "Onward" in Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—Now, will you please tell the Commissioners why you left the skins that you caught on the coast? A.—Left them at Ucalet. Q.—Where is that? A.—About 200 miles from here on the west coast of Vancouver. Q.—You are quite certain it is not on the shores of Alaska? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Was there a sort of depot where the Behring Sea schooners took in their seals? A.—A sort of station where the sealers put in there occasionally; they left their skins there, and left there for Behring Sea. Q.—You left all the catch made outside of Behring Sea at Kyuquot? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How far is Kyuquot from Bering Sea? A.—I could not tell you, I suppose over 1,000 miles. Q.—Now you took all these seals that you left at Kyuquot on you way up, didn't you.? No, sir. Q.—Where did you catch them? A.—Catch them on the West Coast. Q.—Of Vancouver? A.—Yes, sir. Q—On your way up to Kyuquot? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You didn't catch any of them after leaving Kyuquot? A.—No, sir. Q.—Now, is it about 1,000 miles from Behring Sea to Kyuquot? A.—It is over that. Q.—Did you catch any seals between Kyuquot and Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—You had been catching seals uprto the time you went into Kyuquot? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—But you immediately stopped catching seals' when you started for Eehring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—So that the whole catch was taken in Behring Sea that was taken from you by the "Corwin"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—So you didn't see a seal between Kyuquot and Behring Sea? A.—We seen seals, but there was bad weather; could not lower canoes. Q.—There were seals there, so that you could have waited and caught seals. You swear you took no seals between Kyuquot and Be-hring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was there any bad weather in Behring Sea? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—You could lower the canoes when you got into Behring Sea? A.—Lower them the next day. Q.—Although the weather was bad? A.—Fine weather the next day, some days bael weather. Q.—Did you lower j'our canoes in bad weather in Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you catch any from the ship? A.—No, sir. Q.—You were seized, I think you say. on the 2nd of August? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How long do you fish in Behrin<r Sea, ordinarilv? A.— To the 2nd of August, from the 12th of July to the 2nd of August. Q.—How long generally? A.—About ten or twelve days. Q.—How long is*|$he season for catching sea] in Berhjng Sea? A.—About a month and a half. Q.—What month? A.—August 20 Q.—You never fish into September? A.—No, sir, because I no be there. Q.—Does the season run into September? A.—The middle of September the season has run out. Q.—The weather becomes bad about the 1st of September, so that you cannot lower boats? A.—Sometimes the middle of September bad weather. Q.—Usually the 1st of September the weather becomes bad, just as it was between Kyuquot and Behring Sea, so that you cannot lower boats? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And every one of those seals you swear were taken in Behring Sea? A.—Y'es, every one. Q.—All taken in how many days? A.—About 12 days. Q-—Actual sealing 12 days? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And you had no boat outside of the canoes that went sealing, only the one boat belonging to the vessel, and that didn't go stealing? A.—Ne>. sir. Q.—Wasn't lowered off the davits? A.—No, sir. Q.—Ordinarily I believe canoes do not catch as much as a sealing boat, do they? A.—Catch as high as 25 in one canoe in a day. Q.—Anel a boat catches more? A.—Sometimes with hunters. Q.—You had no hunter at all on the "Onward"? A.—No, sir. Q.—No white hunter there? A.—No, sir. . Re-direct. Mr. Peters:—With the consent of the Commissioners I 3° would like to ask the witness whether as a matter of fact he was in Behring Sea before or after that year? A.—No, sir. Q.—That is the only occasion you fished in Behring Sea? ■ A.—Only that year. Q.—It is the only occasion you were ever in Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—That was '86? A.—Eighty-six. Q.—Only once? A—Only once. 4° Q.—I want also to ask you whether at the time that you were seized you had a flag living? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—What flag? A.~English. Q.—Was it left up or taken down? A.—The crew from the revenue cutter took it down. Q.—When? A.—The day when they seized it. Re-cross. Q.—What time did you land the seals at Kyuquot? A.— 50 In June. Q.—What day? A.—Oh. I have forgotten what day, it was too long ago. Q.—And you landed the seals in June, 1886? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And left for Behring Sea? A —Left for Behring Sea. Q.—And it took you all the intervening time to get into Behring Sea? A.—It took us about twenty days. Q.—And you took no seals on the way? A.—No, sir- Q.— Now, didn't the sealing close on the 20th of August 60 in Behring Sea? A.—I don't know. Q.—When you returned were the Indians paid off here at Victoria? A.—I couleln'v tell you. Q.—Didn't you act as interpreter, and didn't McLean pay off, you acting as interpreter; don't you remember that? A. —I couldn't tell, because 1 was in another place. Q.—You wouldn't forget the fact Mould, you; there were quite a number of Indians you had there? A.—Sixteen. Q.—Y'ou wouldn't forget that after you got back to Vic- IO 81 toria, those very Indians had sailed with you on the "Onward" were paid off? A.—He no be paid at Victoria. Q.—Did you see them paid off? A.—No, sir. Q.—And paid by McLean? A.—Well. I never see. Q.—And you didn't act as interpreter at the time? A.— No, sir, I be left. Q.—You be left where? A.—1 go home. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How many seals did you say they had on board when seized? Mr. Dickinson:—About 400 he says on the "Onward." (Recess taken until 2:30.) 20 30 40 50 And at half-past two in the afternoon the Commissioners resumed their seats. Mr. Peters:—Y'our Honours, in reading the correspondence this forenoon, I omitted three letters which I wish to have entered in the notes. The letters I refer to are contained in the same document anel are as follows: No. 15, a dispatch from Sir Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. No. 16, a dispatch from Sir Sackville West to Mr. Bayard; and No. 17, a dispatch from Lord Salisbury to Sir Sackville West. No. 15. Sir L. S. Sackville West to Mr. Bayard. Washington, August 11, 1887. (Received August 12.) Sir: I have the honour to inform you that Her Majesty's Government have received a telegram from the commander- in-chief of Her Majesty's naval forces in the Pacific, dated Victoria, British Columbia, August 7, reporting the seizure by United States cruisers of three British Columbia sealing schooners in Bering's Sea, a long distance from Sitka, and that several other vessels were in sight being towed in. In conveying this information to you, I am requested at the same time by the Marquis of Salisbury to state that, in view of the assurance given in your note of the 3rd of February last, Her Majesty's Government had assumed that pending the conclusion of discussions between the two governments on general questions involved, no further seizures would be made by order of the United States Government. I have, etc., L. S. SACKVILLE WEST. No. 16. Mr. Bayard to Sir L. S. Sackville West. Departmentof State, Washington, August 13, 1887. Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 11th instant, received yesterday afternoon, informing me of a telegraphic communication from the commander-in-chief of Her Majesty's naval forces in the Pacific, 60 elated at Victoria, British Columbia, August 7, reporting the seizure of three British Columbia sealing schooners "in Bering Sea, a long distance from Sitka," and that "several other vessels were in sight being towed in." The reference to my note to you of the 3rd of February last, which you make under the insi met ion of the Marquis of Salisbury, has caused me to examine the expresions contained therein, and I can discover no ground whatever for the assumption by Her Majeal§',8 Government that it con- 6 20 3° tained assurances "that pending the conclusion of discussions between the two governments on general questions involved, no further seizures would be made by order of the United States Government." Until your note of the 11th instant was received, I had no information of the seizure of the sealing vessels therein referred to, and have no knowledge whatever of the circumstances under which such seizures have been made. 1 shall at once endeavor to supply myself with the information necessary to enable me to reply to you more fully. The cases of seizure referred to in my note of February 3, 1887, had occurred during the previous August, and upon the basis of the information then obtained I wrote you as follows: "In this connection I take occasion to inform you that, without conclusion at this time of any questions which may be found to be involved in these cases of seizure, orders have been issued by the President's direction for the discontinuance of all pending proceedings, the discharge of the vessels referred to, and the release of all persons under arrest in connection therewith." Having no reason to anticipate any other seizures, nothing was said in relation to the possibility of such an occurrence, nor do I find in our correspondence on the subject any grounds for such an understanding as you inform me had been assumed to exist by Her Britannic Majesty's Government. A short time since, when you called upon me and personally obtained copies of the record of the judicial proceedings in the three cases of seizure in August last in Bering Sea, nothing was said in relation to other cases. Whether the circumstances attendant upon the cases which you now report to me are the same as those which induced the Executive to direct the releases referred to, remains hereafter to be ascertained, and this with'as little delay as the circumstances will oerniit. I have, etc., T. F. BAY'ARD. 40 5o No. 17. Marquis of Salisbury to Sir L. S. Sackville West. Foreign Office, September 10, 1887. Sir: By a dispatch of the 30th October last (No. 214) the late Earl of Iddesleigh instructed you to call the attention of the United States Secretary of State to the circumstances of the seizure in Bering's Sea, by the American cruiser "Corwin," of some British Canadian vessels; and his lordship directed you to state to Mr. Secrets® Bayard that Her Majesty's Government felt sure that if the proceedings which which were reported to have taken place in tlH United States district court were correctly described the United States Government would admit their illegality, and would cause reasonable reparation to be made to the British subjects for the wrongs to winch they had been subjected and for the losses which they had sustained. By a previous dispatch of the 9th September, you had been desired to ask to be furnished with any particulars which the United States Government might possess relative to the seizures in question; and on the 10th Ocotber you were instructed to enter a protest on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and reserve for consideration hereafter all rights to compensation. Nearly four months having elapsed without definite information being furnished by the United States Government as to the grounds of the seizures, my predecessor instructed you, on the 8th of June (January?) last, to express to Mr. Bayard the concern of Her Majesty's Government at the delay, and to urge the immediate attention of the United States Gov* IO 20 30 40 50 60 33 eminent to the action of the American authorities in their treatment of these vessels and of their masters and crews. On the 3rd of February Mr. Bayard informed you that the record of the judicial proceedings which he had called for was shortly expected to reach Washington, and that, without conclusion at any time of any questions which might be found to be involved in these cases of seizure, orders had been issued by the President's direction for the discontinuance of all pending proceedings, the discharge of the vessels referred to, and the release of all persons under-arrest in connection therewith. On the 4th of April, under instructions from me, you inquired of Mr. Bayard, in view of the approaching fishing season in Bering's Sea, whether the owners of British vessels might rely, when not near land, on bcjing unmolested by the cruisers of the United States, and you again asked when the record of the judicial proceeding's might be expected. Mr. Bayard iuformeel you. in reply (12th April), that the papers referred to had reached him and were being examined; that there had been unavoielable delay in framing appropriate regulations and issuing orders lo (he United States vessels to police the Alaskan waters; that the Kevised Statutes relating to Alaska, sections 1956 anel 1971. contained the laws of the United States in relation to the matter; and that the regulations were being considered, and he would inform you at the earliest day possible what had been decieled, so that British and other vessels might govern themselves accordingly. In view of the statements made by Mr. Bayard in his note pf the 3rel February, to which I have referred above. Her Majesty's Government assumed that, pending a conclusion of the discussion between the two Governments on the general question involved, no further similar seizures of British vessels would be made by order of the United States. Government. The)' learn, however, from the contents of Mr. Bayard's note of the 13th ultimo, inclosed in your dispatch, No. 245, of the 15th ultimo, that such was not the meaning which he intended should be ailacheel to his communication of the 3rd February; and they deeply regret to find a proof of their misinterpretation of the intentions of the United States Government from an announcement recently received from the commander-in-chief of Her Majesty's naval forces in the Pacific, that several more British vessels engaged in seal hunting in Bering's Sea have been seized when a long distance from land hy an American revenue vessel. ' Tier Majesty's Government have carefully considered the ' transcript record of the judicial proceedings in the Tinted States district court in the several cases of the schooners '•'Carolena," "Onwarel" and "Thornton," which were coram u- nicateel to you in July, and were transmitted to me in yeuir dispatch. No. 196, of the 12fl| of (hat month, and they cannot find in them any justification for the condemnation of those vessels. The libels of information allege that they were seized for killing fur-seal within (lie limits of Alaska Territory, and in the waters thereof, in violation of section 1956 of the Revised' Statutes of the United States; and the United States Naval Commander Abbey certainly affirmed that the vessels were seized within the waters of Alaska and the Territory of Alaska, but according to his own evidence, they were seized 75, 115, and 70 miles, respectively, south-southwest of St. George's Island. It is not disputed, therefore, that the seizures in question were effected at a distance from land far in excess of the limit of maritime jurisdiction, which any nation can claim by international law, and it is hardly necessary to add that such limit cannot be enlarged by any municipal law. I The claim flitis set up appears to be founded on the excep- 84 II 10 20 30 40 So 60 tional title said to have been conveyed to the United States by Russia a 1 the lime of the cession of the Alaska Territory. The pteti ision which the Russian Government at one time put forward to -.elusive jurisdiction over the whole of Bering Sea was, however, never admitted either by this country or the I'nited States of America. On the contrary, it was strenuously resisted, as I shall presently show, and the American Government can hardly claim to have received from Russia rights which they declared to be inadmissible when asserted by the Russian Government. Nor does it appear from the text of the treaty of 1867 that Russia either intended or purported to make any such grant, for by Article I of that instrument Russia agreed to cede to the United States all the territory and dominion then possessed by Russia "on the continent of America and in the adjacent islands" within certain geographical limits described, and no mention was made of any exclusive right over the waters of Bering Sea. Moreover, whatever rights as regards their respective subjects and citizens may be reciprocally conferred on the Russian and American Governments by treaty stipulation, the subjects of Her Majesty can not be thereby affected, except by special arrangement with this country. With regard to the exclusive claims advanced in times past by Russia, I transmit to you documents communicated to the United States Congress in 1822, which show the view taken by the American Government of these pretensions. In 1821 the Emperor of Russia had issued an edict establishing "rules for the limits of navigation and order of communication along the coast of the Eastern Siberia, the northwestern coast of America, and the Aleutian, Kurile, and other islands." The first section of the said edict said: "The pursuit of commerce, whaling, and fishing, and of all other industry on all islands, ports and gulfs, including the whole of the northwest coast of America, beginning from Be ring Straits to the 51st degree of northern latitude; also from the Aleutian Islands to the eastern coast of Siberia, as well as along the Kurile Islands from Bering Straits to the south Gape of the Island of Urup, viz., to the 45th degree 50 minutes of northern latitude, is exclusively granted to Russian subjects." And section 2 stated: "It is, therefore, prohibited to all foreign vessels, not only to land on the coast and islands belonging to Russia, as stated above, but also to approach them within less than 100 Italian miles. The transgressor's vessel is subject to confiscation, along with the whole cargo." A copy of these regulations was officially communicated to the American Secretary of State by the Russian minister at Washington on the» 11 th February, 1822, whereupon Mr. Quincy Adams, on the 25th of that month, after informing him that the President of the United States had seen with surprise the assertion of a territorial claim on the part of Russia extending to the 51 st degree of north latitude on the American continent, and a regulation intedieaHng to all commercial vessels other than Russian upon the penfflty of seizure and confiscation the approach upon the high seas within 100 Italian miles of the shores, to which that claim was made to apply, went on to say that it~was expected, before any act which should define the boundary between the territories of the United States and Russia, that the same would have been arranged by treaty between the parties, and that "to exclude the vessels of American citizens from the shore beyond the ordinary distance to which territorial juriseiitUion extended has e^xcited still greate-r surprise;" and Mr. Aelams asked whether- the Russian minister was authorized to give explanations of the "ground of right upon principles gener- 10 20 3° 4o 60 85 ally recognized by the laws and usages of nations which can warrant the claims and regulations." The Russian minister in his reply, dated the 28th February, after explaining how Russia had acquired her possessions in North America, said: "I ought, in the last place, to request you to consider, sir, that the Russian-.possessions in the Pacific Ocean extend on the northwest coast of America from Bering Strait to the 51st degree of north latitude, and on the opposite side of Asia and the islands adjacent from the same strait to the 45th degree. The extent of sea of which these possessions form the limits comprehends all the conditions which are ordinarily attached to shut seas ('mers ferinees'), and the Russian Government might consequently judge itself authorized to exercise upon this sea the right of sovereignty, and especially that of entirely interdicting the entrance of foreigners; but it preferred only asserting its essential rights without taking advantage of localities." On the 30th March Mr. Adams replied to the explanations given by the Russian minister. He stated that, with respect to the pretension advanced in regard to territory, it must be considered not only with reference to the question of territorial rights, but also to that prohibition to the vessels of other nations, including those of the United States, to approach within 100 Italian miles of the coasts. That from the period of the existence of the United States as an independent nation their vessels had freely navigated these seas, the right to navigate them being a part of that independence; and with regard to the suggestion that "the Russian Government might have justified the exercise of sovereignty over the Pacific Ocean as a close sea. 'because it claims territory both on its American and Asiatic shores,' it may suffice to say that the distance from shore to shore on this sea, in latitude 51 degrees north, is not less than 90 degrees of longitude, or 4,000 miles." Mr. Adams concluded as follows: "The President is persuaded that the citizens of this Union will remain unmolested in the prosecution of their lawful commerce, and that no effect will be given to an interdiction manifestly incompatible with their rights." The convention between the United States of America and Russia of the 17th April, 1824, put an end to any further pretension on the part of Russia to restrict navigation or fishing in Bering Sea so far as -American citizens were concerned, for by Article I il was agreed that in any part of the Great Ocean, commonly called the Pacific Ocean or South Sea, the respective citizens or subjects of the high contracting powers shall neither be disturbed nor restrained, either in navigation or fishing, save certain restrictions which are not material to the present issue; and.a similar stipulation in the convention between this country and Russia in the following year (15th May, 1825), put an end as regarded British subjects to the pretensions of Russia, to which I have referred, and which had been entirely repudiated by Her Majesty's Government in correspondence with the Russian Government in 1821 and 1822, which for your more particular information I inclose herein. Her Majesty's Government feel sure that, in view of the considerations which I have set forth in this dispatch, which you will communieate to Mr. Bayard, the Government of the United States will admit that the seizure and condemnation of these British vessels and the imprisonment of their masters and crews were not warranted by the circumstances, and that they will be ready to afford reasonable compensation to those who have suffered in consequence, and issue immediate instructions to their naval officers which will prevent a recurrence of these regrettable incidents. I am, etc., SALISBURY. IO 20 30 40 86 Mr.. Peters:—Under the rule provided by this Commission as to the inspection of documents, I gave notice of inspection to my learned friend with regard to certain documents in reference to the "Carolena." Amongst others, I asked him for the certificate of British registry, the bill of health, and the clearance. In answer to that Mr. Die-kinson inl'ormei me that he did not have the originals of these documents, stating verbally that they were annexed to the original record at Sitka and could not be produced. He, however, furnished me with a copy of the certificate of British registry, which I now tender in evidence. Document filed as Exhibit No. 1 for G. B. in the "Carolena" case. Exhibit 1 consists of the certificate of British registry of the "OTpolena," dated 21st March, 1870, as found on the ship at the time of the seizure. Coasting license of the same ship for the year 1886, dated 16th February, 1886, also found on the ship at the time of seizure. Filed as Exhibit No. 2 G. B., "Carolena" case. Clearance of the "Carolena,"-dated 19th of May, 1SS6. also found on ship. Filed as Exhibit 3 G. T... "Carolena" case. Bill of health of the ship "Carolena," dated 9th of May. 1SS6, also found on ship. Filed as Exhibit No. 4 G. P., "Carolena" case. Mr. Peters:—(OoiSlnuing) I gave my learned friend notice to produce and also a request for leave to inspect, the original log of the "Carolena" which, as appears by the' recorel already produced, was taken on board her. I have an answer from my learned friend that he had not the log in his possession and cannot produce- it. 1 may take that, I suppose, as a statement of fact. Mr. Dickinson:—To be sure. Mr. Peters:—i shall now proceed with the evidence in Claim No. 1, the "Carolena" case,.; 60 CLAIM NO. 1—THE "CAROLENA." William Munsie. of the city of Yu'.toria, a witness produceel on behalf of Her Majesty, being duly sworn, deposed as fo! lows: Examined by Mr. Peters. Q.—Mr. Munsie, you reside in Victoria? A.—1 do. Q.—For how long have you been in business here? A.— I have been in Victoria for 18 years. Q.—In what year did you become owner of the schooner "Carolena"? A.—About the year 1.SS5. Q.—Did the schooner "Carolena" fit out for a settling voy* age in 1886? A.—She did. Q.:—What port did she sail from? A.—Victoria. Q.—And she was bound in what direction, was it fe>r Retiring Sea? A.—I do not remember how the clearance reSlgf but perhaps it was North Pacific Ocean and Behring Sea; I would not be positive; the clearance is there and speaks for itself. Q.—After (he "Carolena" sailed from Victoria on that voyage1, elid vou ever see her again? A.—-No. 10 20 3° 4° Q.—That is the last you saw of her? A—Y'es, the last I saw of her. Q.—You stated that you be*came owner of the "Carolena" somewhere about 1885, would you kindly tell me, did you buy her all at the one time? A.—No, I did not. Q.—Who was the owner of her when you commenced to buy her? A.—I believe Donald Urquhart. Q.—In 1885, did you enter into negotiations for the purchase of any part of the "Carolena"? A.—Yes, 21 shares. Q.—Was there; any other person who was also buying an interest in that vessel? A.—Yes. Q.—What was his name? A.—Henry Matthewson. Q.—You were to buy 21 shares, and Maathewson was to buy how many? A.—He was to buy one-third, which amounted to 21 or 22 shares. I have forgotten which. Q.—And what was to become of the other one-third? -V.— Captain Urquhart was retaining it. Q.—The arrangement then was made that you three men were to become the owners of the ship? A.—Yes. Q.—The original idea was that the three of you were to own that ship? A.—That was the original understanding. Q.—When you were buying the one-third and Matthewson another one-third from Captain Urquhart, was there any valuation put on the vessel at that time? A.—Yes, about $3,800. Q.—She was then valued at f3,800? A.—About that, but I will not be positive. Mr. Dickinson:—Is that valuation in writing? Mr. Peters:—That valuation is not in writing, but I intend to explain the whole transaction. Examination by Mr. Peters continued: Q.—Were you to pay Urquhart at that rate? A.—Yes, at that rate. Q.—The vessel was valued at $3,800, and you were buyiag one-third of her at that rate? A.—Y'es. Q.—Was Matthewson buying on the same arrangement? A.—Yes, on the same rate. Q.—How did you pay for that vessel then, did you pay all that amount of money in cash? A.—No, I did not. Q.—Did you pay a part of it in cash? A.—i paid part cash. Q.—And the vest was paid how? A.—In two promissory notes. Q.—nave you those promissory notes in your possession now? A.—No, I have not. Q.—Did you keep them? A.—No, I did not.. zo Q-—Were they paid? A.—They were paid. Q.—Can you from memory state the amount of them7 \. —I would not like to state positively, it is so long ago. but it was about $500 for one, and somewhere about $100 for the. other one. Q.—Those M'ere the notes you gave in part payment for your one-third share? A.—Yes Q.—In addition to that did you pay cash? A.—Yes. Q.—What amount of cash?' A —Between $600 and $700. Q.—Did Mr. Matthewson make a similar arrangement 6o with regard to his one-third share? A.—I cannot speak for Matthewson. Q.—Now. I will take you down to the exact transaction. Did you get a bill of sale at the time you bought the first one- third of the vessel? A.—Yes. Q.—Is that the document which I now .show you? A.— That is the document. Q.—This is a bill of sale from Donald Urquhart to William Munsie, dated the 2lst of January, 1885, of 21 shares in the schooner "Carolena? A.—Y'es. 3° 4° 6o Q.—i wish to call your attention, particularly, Mr. Munsie, to the part f>f this document that says, "I, Donald Urquhart, master mariner, etc., in consideration of the sum of |667, said consideration being the value of the one-third interest, transfers to William Munsie, etc."—and then follows the transfer of the shares. As a matter of fact, it is stated there that $667 was the consideration for that transfer. Did that represent the whole amount actually paid? A.—No, it did not. I did not attach any importance to the amount placed in the bill of sale then. Q.—I want to get to this point: Are you positive that in addition to that $667, which you say you paid cash, you paid an additional amount on these notes? A.—Yes. Q.—And that $667 does not fully represent what you paid for the one-third interest in the schooner "Carolena"? A.— Not at. all. Q.—You have given your explanation that you paid very little attention to the amount put in the bill of sale? A.— Yes. Q.—Can you tell me who drew up that bill of sale? A.— I have forgotten now. Q.—You didn't draw it? A.—I did not, Q.—And all that is stated in the bill of sale is in reality only the $667 that was paid in cash? A.—Yes, the amount that was paid in cash. Bill of sale filed as Exhibit 5 G. B., "Carolena" case. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How many shares in the whole ship? Witness:—There were 64 shares in the whole ship. (Examination by Mr. Peters continued:) Q.—AVhen this transaction was completed you and Mr. Urquhart and Mr. Matthewson owned that ship "Carolena" between you? A.—We did. Q.—Was it your intention to work the ship between you? A.—It was. Q.—Did you find that you could carry that intention out, or is it not a fact that a difference arose between you and Mr. Urquhart? A.—Yes. Q.—And what was the result of that? A.—I purchased Captain Urquhart's interest that stood in his name in the ship; I purchased his one'Sird. Q.—Will you look at this document and tell me whether that is the bill of sale of that purchase? A.—That is the bill of sale. Q.—This is a bill of sale .from Donald Urquhart to William Munsie of 21 shares in the schooner "Carolena," dated the 4th of February, 1885. Bill of sale filed as Exhibit 6 G. B., "Carolena case. Q.—Referring to the body of this bill of sale I find that the consideration is also stated as $667. As a matter of fact, did you, ov) did you not, pay more than $667 to Mr. Urquhart for his one-third share? A.—I paid him $1,250. Q.—You swear that, positively? A.—Positively. Q.—Did you pay that in cash, or how? A.—I paid that in cash at the time. Q.—It appears that Mr. Matthewson also bought a one- third interest in this ship in January, as already stated, is this the bill of sale for that transaction? A.—This is a bill of sale from Donald Urnuhart to Henry Matthewson of 22 shares in the "Carolena," dated the 21st of January, 1885. Bill of sale filed as Exhibit No. 7 G. B„ "Carolena" case. Q.—This also states that the consideration was $667, but IO 20 40 60 89 you have stated, that you do not know how Mr. Matthewson carried out his transaction? A.—I do not know as to the method in which he paid it, but the price was at the same rate. Q.—You do not know what arrangements he made as to the actual settlement? A.—I do not know; I have forgotten. Q.—The result of these two transactions was that you and Mr. Matthewson became the owners of that schooner in February, 1885? A.—Yes. Q.—Later in the same year, did you have another transaction with Mr. Matthewsou? A.—About June of the same year I bought Mattbewson's one-third interest. Q.—Will you tell me what Mr. Matthewson wanted to do at that time, or where he wanted to go to? A.—If I remember, he wished to go to the mines, and so I bought his one- third share in the "Carolena." Q.—Is this the bill of sale you got from him? A.—That is the bill of sale for 22 shares. Q.—I believe the amount stated in this bill of sale is the same as in the other? A.—Yes, it is about the same; it is 669. (Bill of sale filed as Exhibit No. 8, G. B., "Carolena" case.) Q.—As a matter of fact, does that state correctly the consideration paid by you to Matthewson? A.—No. Q.—Did you pay him more than that? A.—I paid him $1,000. Q.—He was then getting out of the business and going mining? A.—Yes. Q.—At the time you bought the second one-third from Mr. Urquhart, in February, 1885, did you raise part of the money by mortgage on the vessels? A.—I did. Q.—How much cash did you actually raise at that time? A.—I cannot be positive, but it was about $500. Q.—From whom did you raise it? A.—Mr. A. J. Bechtel. Q.—Did you pay that mortgage off, or was it satisfied? A.— It was satisfied in June, 1885, and I got the mortgage back. Q.—Did you preserve it? A.—I am not able to put my hands on it, and I do not know whether it is in existence or not. Q.—You cannot find it? A.—I cannot. Q.—What I want to get at is this: The consideration in that mortgage is stated at $667; was $667 the amount you actually borrowed, or was it more? A.—I borrowed about $500. Q.—There seems to be the same amount stated in all these documents. For some reason or another it was put in here at $667, but that was not the real transaction? A.—I think the amount was put in to cover interest. I would not be positive, but that is about the recollection I have of it. Q.—Did you settle that mortgage up in the following June? A.—When I bought Matthewson out in June I borrowed some more money, cancelled that mortgage and gave one for $1,000. I borrowed that from Mr. Bechtel. Q.—Is that the second mortgage you gave to the same man? A.—That is the second mortgage. Mortgage from William Munsie to A. J. Bechtel. dated 19th of June, 1885, for $1,000. (Filed as Exhibit No. 9. G. B. "Carolena" case.l Q-—Was the amount due on the first mortgage settled by this $1,000? A.—It was settled by the new mortgage. Q.~Did you pay the interest that was due on the first mortgage up to that time? A.—I presume so. Q.—Have you any doubt about it? A.—No I have no doubt of it. Q.—After the second mortgage was given, did you pay interest on it? A.—Y'es. Q.—Have y'ou here the receipts for the payment of the in; A.—Y'es. I paid the interest semiannually at the rate of one per cent, per month, as shown by the receipts here. Q.—Was that the usual amount charged at that time on oans of that description? A.—Yes. that was a fair rate of interest in those days. Q.—How did you pay. the interest on that?. A.—As I see by the receipts here, there are ten for six months' interest and one for four months, so that I would have paid the interest for five years and a little over. Q.—Are these the original receipts? A.—I think there are one or two that are not original; I think there were one or two, or perhaps three, mislaid, and when I was gathering up my papers I asked Mr. Bechtel to give me a copy of the receipts. Q.—Are you prepared to swear positively that you actually 20 paid them? A.—Positively. Q.—Did you finally pay the principal off? A.—Y'es. Q.—And that mortgage was discharged? I see there is a regular discharge on the back of it, dated the 8th of November, 189Q, and signed by Mr. Bechtel? A.—Yes, that is correct- Q.—And that was duly recorded? A.—Yes. 3° 40 50 60 (The eleven receipts above referred to, filed together as Exhibit No. 9, G. B. "Carolena" case.) Q.—Now, you have given us a statement as to how you became the owner of the "Carolena?" A.—Y'es. Q.—You have stated that you gave these notes to Mr. Ur quhart and paid them. As a matter of fact, is Mr. Urquhart dead? A.—Yes. Q.—What was his occupation? A.—He was a master mariner, and I believe he acted as pilot. Q.—Where is Mr. Matthewson? A.—I do not know. Q.—Have you the least idea of where he is to be found? A.—Not the remotest idea; to the best of my knowledge he is not in the country. Q.—When did he leave the country? A.—In the summer of 1885. Q.—And have you seen him since? A.—I have not seen him since. Q.—Nor do you know anything about him? A.—No. Q.—In the year 1885 did you go into the sealing business in Behring Sea? A.—No. Q.—For what purpose did jrou use the "Carolena" that year? A.—For trading on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Q.—In that trading did you deal in seals? A.—Yes; I got the seals from the Indians. Q.—Were you catching seals that year on the coast? A.— I am not positive whether the "Carolena" went out that year from the shore or not. I have forgotten. Q.—But the main portion of your business in 1885 was trading with the Indians and buying skins from them? A.— Yes. I think the "Carolena" may have made one or two trips out, but it is so long ago I cannot remember. Q.—In the spring of 1885, before you bought Matthewson's share, was the "Carolena" on this trading voyage? A.—Yes in the spring. She had gone out and come back again, and it was when she came back that I made a trade with him for his share, he then being anxious to go mining. Q.—Now, from 1885, when you got. Matthewson's share, up to 1886, when the "Carolena" was seized, was there any other person who had any interest in that vessel except yourself? A.—None other than the mortgagee. Q.—You are positive about that? A.—Positive. 9' 20 30 Q.—-And the mortgagee you have spoken of was Mr. Bechtel, who had that one thousand dollar mortgage? A.—Yes. Q.—Which mortgage you afterwards paid off? A.—Yes. Q.—Had the mortgagee any interest with the exception of the loan he had made? A.-—None whatever. Q.—He had no interest in the voyages she was^makinsr? A.—None. Q.—Nor in her cargo? A.—No. Q.—Had he any interest in her outfit? A.—None whai- !o ever. Q.—Neither direct nor indirect? A.—She was absolutely my own property. Q.—You outfitted that vessel in 1886, and the first question I want to ask you is who fitted her out for sealing in 1886; did you do it yourself? A.—Y'es. Q.—Did you at that time keep a regular set of books'? A.— I did not. Q.—Did you keep any books whatever? A.—None except a small memorandum book. Q.—As to the supplies that you got to put in the schooner "Carolena," did you pay for them in cash, or how? A.—As a rule I paid in cash for everything just at the time, or after the vessel w:ould leave. Q.—Have you been able to find the actual vouchers for the expenditures you incurred in 1886 in outfitting the schooner "Carolena?" A.—I have. Q.—I Wish you to look at voucher number 1 and state if that is an original voucher? A.—That is an original voucher. Q.—-What is it for? A.—It is a tinsmith's bill for part of the outfit for the schooner "Carolena"; it is a voucher from S. L. Kelly. Q.—Was that paid by you? A:—Yes, that was paid by me. Q.—What is the amount of that voucher? A.—There is one voucher for $11.00 and one for $7.00, amounting to $21.00 in all. Q.—Is that for this vessel? A.—Yes, it is for the "Carolena." Q.—Now look at voucher number 2, and tell us if that is an original voucher? A.—Yes, that is an original voucher. Q.—What is it for? A.—It is an item of $2.00 for hauling lumber and putting stuff on board the vessel. Q.—Was that paid by you? A.—Y'es. Q.—Now look at voucher number 3 and state if that is an original voucher? A.—This is not an original voucher; i( is a duplicate. I saw in my little note-book that I had paid it to Wm. P. Sayward for lumber on account o.f the schooner 50 "Carolena" and I went and I got a duplicate voucher for It. It amounts to $41.52 and was paid to Wm. P. Sayward for lumber for the schooner "Carolena." Q.—It was paid by you. A.—Yes. Q.—Are you prepared to say that you paid that amount for lumber for the schooner "Carolena"? A.—Y'es, I did. Q.—Say what that lumber was required for? A.—It.was used for making partitions in the hold, enlarging the forecastle for the men, making bunks for the Indians, and mak ing salt bins and provision||pns in the vessel. 6° Q.—Hereafter you have | statement putting in the value of your ship. Is that if3?m ine-luded in the value of the vessel as claimed by you? A.—No, sir, it is not. That is for things necessary for the voyage and they are not included in the claim 1 inKke for the value of the vessel. Q.—Now these vouchers which we are now putting in are for payments' made by you, and are in addition to the value of the vessel? A.—Yes, sir, they are in addition to the value of the vessel. 0-—Look at voucher number 4, and state if that is an original voucher? A.—Y'es, this is an original voucher. It 40 is a receipt from E. G Prior, dated February is for $12.16. Q.—Was that for hardware for the vessel A.—Yes. Q.—And that amount was paid by you? A.—Yes. Q.—Look at voucher number 5 and state what it is? A.— This is an original voucher and is for $3.50 for drayage, for carrying stuff on board the "Carolena." Q.—That was paid by you? A.—Yes. Q.—Look at voucher number 6, and tell us what it is? A.—Vemcher number 6 is a receipt from E. B. Marvin, Ship Chaneller; it is an original voucher and it is for the sum of $83.07 and $37.01, in all $120.08, for supplies for the "Carolena." Q.=—By whose orders were- these things put on board the ship. A.—The Captain I believe ordered those. <}.--As a matter of fact, did you yourself pay for them? A.—Yes, sir, I paid for them pe^rsonalU. Q.—Before you paid for them did you satisfy yourself that they were on board the ship? A.—Yes, the captain usually keeps a little check-book with regard to those things, he either enters them in his check-book, or marks the bill "O.K." Q.—E. B. Marvin is doing business here now? A.—Yes. Q.—And he is obtainable as a witness? A,—Yes. Q.—Look at voucher number 7 and tell us if it is an original receipt? A.—Yes, it is an original receipt. Q.—What is that receipt for A.—It is for the amount of $5.00 paid to Mr. Leach for rating the chronometer. Q.—And you paid that yourself for the vessel "Carolena"? A.—Yes, I see it here stated that the number of the chronometer was 807. Q.—Look at voucher number 8 and state what it is for? lantern A.—Yes. ship "Oaro- A.—It is a small bill amounting to $1.25 for wicks for the ship "Carolena." Q.—You paid that bill yourself for the ship? Q.—In fact, all these supplies were for the lena.". A.—Yes. Q.—Look at voucher number 9 and tell us what it is? A. —It is a receipt from John Robertson, Blacksmith, for $54.66 for supplies for the schooner 'Carolena." Q.—Is that an original voucher? A.—It is an original receipt. Q.—Is there anything in that bill included in your value of the ship which you will hereafter file in the case? A.— No, these are necessary expenses which we are obliged to go through year after year. Q.—And they were all for this voyage of the "Carolena"? A.—Yes. Q.—Look at voucher number 10 and tell us'what that is? A.—This is an original voucher from Charles Pardoe for $4.40, paid for gun wads for the schooner "Carolena." Q.—What is the date of that? A.—May, 1886. Q.—And all these vouches are for the beginning of the year of 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—Look at voucher number 11, and state what that is? A.—That is an amount of $2-3.56 for what appears to have been bought from the pilot of the schooner "Mary Taylor." Q.—How do you know it was bought, did you pay for it? A.—Yes, I paid for it to Captain McAllister. Q.—Who was Captain McAllister? A.—He was one of the owners I believe of the "Mary Taylor" at that time. Q.—Did an order accompany that account for you to pay it? A.—There was I believe an order accompanying it to pay the amount. Q.—This is supposed to be for some things that were supplied to' the "Carolena" from the schooner "Mary Taylor" and you got the bill, and you paid it? A.—Yes. IO 20 30 40 SO 60 93 Q.—And as far as you know, the things were on the ship? A.—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Peters, are you going to prove these things were on board ' the ship before it is contested on the other side? Of course masters of vessels do not always have personal knowledge of what goes on board the vessel. Mr. Peters:—I will go through these vouchers your honour as quickly as I can. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I believe you are going through them as rapidly as possible, but I thought you might save time by avoiding suppositions until we have heard from the other side. Mr. Peters:—Very well your Honour. (Examinatiou by Mr. Peters continued.) Q.—Mr. Munsie, will you please look at voucher number 12, and state what that voucher is? A.—That is an original voucher for the sum of $34.04, paid to Dean S. Sears for repairs to sails of the schooner "Carolena." Q.—You paid that amount? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—Look at voucher number 13, and please state what that is? A.—That is a sum of $18.75 paid to John Weiler for furniture for the schooner "Carolena"; it is an original voucher. Q.—Did you pay that? A.—Yes. This appears to be charged to Carne & Munsie but there is an entry at the side "for schooner 'Carolena.'" Q.—As a matter of fact, these goods were for the schooner "Carolena"? A.—Yes. I might state that in those days I was in the provision business and sometimes goods were charged to Carne & Munsie, with which, as a firm, we had nothing to do. These goods wrere chargeable to the schooner "Carolena," and were paid on that account. I was in partnership with Mr. Carne at the time. Q.—Please look at voucher number 14 and state what it is? A.—This is a receipt from Peter McQuade & Son, ship chandlers, for $91.09. It is an original voucher for goods supplied to the "Carolena." I paid that myself. Q.—Look at voucher number 15 and state what that voucher is? A.—This is a voucher for $71.32, paid to W. J. Jeff- lee for goods supplied to the schooner "Carolena" as per bills rendered. It Is an eiriginal voucher, as I have stated, and the goods were for the "Carolena." It is addressed to ''Carne & Munsie," hut is marked on account "for the schooner 'Carolena.'" Q.—Now with regard to that voucher I want to ask you, what is the stsK charged in that voucher for? A.—It was for supplies in (lie shape of clothing that were put on board the "Carolena" for the convenience of the men during the voyage. Q.—Is that what you call a "slop-chest"? A.—Yes, that is what the sailors call a "slop-chest." Q.—That means that you have certain goods on board which are sold from time to time to the men? A.—Yes, when fitting out for sealing we always put a certain amount of goods on board for the men, such as oil-cloths,- sou-westers, gum-boots, overalls and things of that description. Q.—Is that the usual custom? A.—Yes, the usual custom. In fact, it is always done. Q.—And this bill now before us was for stuff in the slop- chest? A.—Y'es, the bill was charged to Carne & Munsie, and a note was added that it was for the schooner "Carolena" and the goods were put on the schooner. Q.—And the bills were paid by you? A,—All these bills were paid by me. 10 20 3° 4° 5o 6o 94 M—Look at voucher number 16 and state what that voucher is for? A.—This is a bill from On Hing & Bro. for stuff of the same class; it amounts to $46.25 and was paid by me. Q.—Is that an original bill? A.—That is not an original bill. Q.—But you have an original bill? A.—I had an original bill but it was so badly torn up that I asked him to make out a new bill later. Q.—On Hing is in business here to-day and can be produced as a witness if necessary? A.—Y'es. Q.—Look at voucher number 17 and state what that is? A.—That is a bill from Thomas Gowen, iron founder, for $6.10 for work done on the "Carolena"; it is an original bill and I paid it. Q.—Look at voucher "number 18 and state what it is? A.— It is a bill from T. N. Hibben & Company for charts and stationary, etc., for the schooner "Carolena"; it amounts to $26.25 and was paid by me. Q.—Is it an original Uil? A.—It is not the original. The original bill got mislaid with some others and I went afterwards and had a duplicate made out. Q.—Are Ilibben & Co. in business here to-day, and can they be produceel? A.—YTes. Q.—Y'ou paid the money yourself? A.—I paid it myself. Q.—Look at voucher .number 19 and state what that voucher is for? A.—That is a bill from Thomas Turtle, it is for a chronometer bought from the ship "Harvest Home," and is valued at $160. Q.—Did you pay that? A.—Y'es. Q.—Was* that chronomter on board the "Carolena" when she sailed? A —It was on board her when she left Victoria. The number of the chronometer was 807, as appears by the bill, voucher number 19. Mr. Peters:—I might state to the Commissioners that in mentioning this chronometer I should like a note taken of the fact that in a copy of the partial inventory of the. goods on board the "< 'arolena" when she was seized, which copy was given me by my learned friend Mr. Dickinson, I find one "chronometer number 807." This is, therefore, the same chronometer as appears on this bill. (Examination by Mr. Peters continued.) Q.—Look at voucher number 20 and state what it is? A. .—This is a voucher for $47.12 for fuel, wharfage, etc., for the ship "Carolena"; it was paid by myself to Henry Noble. Q.—Look at voucher 21 and" teli us what that is? A.—It is an original bill paid to Mr. George Phillips for castings and repairs to stoves, etc., for the ship "Carolena," it amounts to $39.25 and was paid by me. Q.—Is that included in the valuation which you hereafter made of your ship? A.—None of these are included in the valuation of the vessel. All these appertain to the outfit; they are not included in the value as they are expenses which we have to go to from year to year. Q.—Look at voucher number 22 and state what that is?A. —This is a voucber for $7.50 paid to Donald Urquhart for surveying the ship "Carolena." Q.—That was paid by you? A.—Yes. Q.—Loe>k at voucher 23 and state what it is? A.—This is a voucher, a receipt from "Indian Jimmy" for $248 for 4 canoes, 5 paddles and seabbladders. Q.^—These vou bought for the schooner "Carolena" 9 A Yes. ■Q-—That purports to be a receipt. signed bv "Indian Jimmy?" A.—Y'es. 20 95 Q.—Witnessed by whom? A.—Witnessed by one of the men on board the vessel. Q.—Did you pay that money to Indian Jimmy? A.—I paid ii in the presence of the person referred to. <). — I want the item explained. Were these canoes actually on board the "Carolena" when she was seized? A.— I presume so. I bought them for the "Carolena'' and they were on board her. No doubt they are the same canoes. [0 Q.—You inteneled to send her out in 1886 to fish for seals? A.—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is that .the usual price for four canoes? Mr. Peters:—I will explain that in a moment. These canoes are fully worth the amount stated there. I am not quite sure that we will be able to give evidence in any other case as to their purchase, but in this case the canoes were bought out and out. (Examination by Mr. Peters continued.) Q.—In 1886 you maele up your mind to send the "Carolena" sealing? If you were fishing with white men and their boats, how many men does it take to each boat? A.—■ Three, namely, a hunter, and a puller, and a boat steerer. Q.—If you fish from canoes, how many men do you have in each canoe A.—We have two, a hunter and a puller. Q.—Now then, in IS^ii. did you first intend to take Indian hunters? A.—Yes, I did. Q.—Did you send your vessel down the coast to get Indian hunters? A.—Yes. Q.—Were you able to ge-t ihem? A.—The Indians were a little timjd about going sealing so far from home. Of course I was not down there, bur I think the captain told me that they first agreed to go, and after consultation they decidee not to go. Many of these thought it was too far from home and they refused to go, and I had instructed the captain before he left that if he could not secure Indians he should buy 4 or 5 good canoes, and should fit the "Carolena" out with white hunters, putting two men in each canoe. She was not one of the largest sealing vessels and her accommodation was not very good, and so by putting two men in a canoe instead of three in a boat it saved the space of 4 or 5 men. Q.—You therefore had a special reason for trying to get canoes? A.—Y'es. Q.—You wanted to get Indians first, but as you could not get them you determined, you would buy canoes out and out 5° and put white hunters in them. Did you get white huners -to agree to that? .V.—Y'es. Q.—Did you get men well accustomed to canoes? A.— Yes, good young fellows. Q.—Under the circumstances you bought canoes and paid for them? A.—Y'es. Q.—And you paid $248 for them? A.—Yes, I paid, that for the canoes with the outfit. There, were paddles, and a mast, and sails, and what we call seal-bladdiirij. The Indians were in the habit those days of using . seal-bladders ^3 lashed on the sides of their canoes during the rough weather, and the owners thought it was a good way and took bladders along with them. The canoes really cost $50 each, and there was $48 for the outfit. Q.—After you got canoes, did you fit them out with row- loe-ks? A.—After getting them I put steel ribs in them and row-locks suited to the white men. Q.—State what are the lengths of these canoes, and what size they are? A.—They are' from 20 to 23 feet in length and about four feet wide at the gunwale, I do not renmm- 40 irolena''Y A.—Yes. B. Frances, and is for You paid that and it Q.—You do not think the price out of the out of the way. Q.—The canoes you bought last year are of the same description? A.—Yes; we can get canoes all the way from $20 to $50. look at Voucher No. 24 and state what it is? voucher or receipt from William Turtle; it is ., for the schooner "Carolena." an original bill? A.—Yes. -It is not included in the value of the ship? A.—No. -And you paid it yourself? A.—Yes. Q.—Please look at voucher 25 and state what that is? A. —That is a receipt from Mr. Janion for salt for the curing of seal skins and for wharfage on four loads of freight; it is for the schooner "Carolena." Q.—Please look at voucher 26 and state what that is? A. —That is from the schooner "Pathfinder" to the schooner "Carolena," and is for $45 for salt and other things. That was taken over by the "Carolena" from the "Pathfinder." Q.—Voucher 27 is a charge of $2.75 for water; is that correct? A.—Y'es. Q.—You paid it and it was for the i Q.—Voucher 28 is a receipt from A. $1.75 for hardware for the "Carolena.': is correct? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—Voucher 29 is a receipt from Muirhead & Carter for demijohns for the "Carolena." The amount, is $3.50 and you paid it? A.—Yes. These demijohns were used in the canoes for carrying water out to sea while the men were away from the vessel. Q.—Is voucher 30 an original document? A.—Y'es. Q.—Have you a receipt from the captain for that? A.— Yes. Q.—What does it say? A.—It acknowledges the receipt of $500 for incidental expenses and advances, etc., to men on the voyage, and is signed by James Ogilvie, the master. It is dated May 19, 1886. Q.—Did you give Captain Ogilvie $500 in cash when he left Victoria? A.—Yes. Q.—Did he take that money with him as far as you know? A.—Yes. so far as I know he took it. Q.—Is it usual to give a captain money in that way? A.— It is customary always to supply the captain with some money when he leaves port, so that in the event of his running out of provisions, or going in anywhere in distress, he may have the money that he requires. Q.—And outside of all question of custom, you positively swear that you gave Captain Ogilvie that money? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you ever receive any of that money back? A.— Never. Mr. Dickinson claim that the United States con verted the $500 in cash to its own 20 97 Mr. Peters:—I claim that their improper action in using that old man and putting him into a place where somebody robbed him makes them so far responsible for it. I do not say they took it themselves. Examination by Mr. Peters continued: Q.—There are some other matters included in that voucher No. 30. Please explain what they are? A.—There is an item for §75 for nautical instruments. These were on the ship, IO and I am not sure who they belonged to. I was responsible for them. I borrowed them from some person, but I cannot say who they belonged to. Q.—In the inventory supplied by my learned friend I see they are styled as an octant and a quadrant. I suppose these are the same? A.—I suppose so. Q.—Was $75 the value of them? A.—I would not swear to it. I put them in at $75. presuming they were worth that. Q.—When did you make that voucher up? A.—A few days ago It is simply a statement, and not a receipt. Q.—Did you make any inquiry about the value? A.—Yes. I made some inquiries, and the result was that I consider they would be worth about $75. Q.—What else is there included in that Voucher No. 30? A.—There is one boat valued at $100. Q.—Was that a sealing boat, or a ship's boat? A.—It is so long ago I do not remember; I remember buying the boat, but from whom I cannot remember, but I know the boat was on board the "Carolena" when she left, and I believe $100 to be a fair value for it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Had the "Carolena" any boat when you bought, her? Witness:—She had a large ship's boat. Q.—What became of that? g£ra| Witness:—I do not remember. 40 (Examination by Mr. Peters continued.) Q.—This is not the boat that was on her when you bought her? A.— 1 think I bought that boat from Mr. Colvin, a boat builder, but I cannot remember now whether she was a sealing boat or not. Q.— Voucher number 31 is a receipt from Thomas Shot- bolt for drugs and medicines for $4.80. That was for the "Carolena," and you paid it? A.—Yes. Q.—Voucher number 32 is for customs, shipping crews, 50 etc., for the "Carolena" at Victoria; it amounts to $6, and is it correct? A.—Yes, that is the original receipt from the shipping master. Q.—Voucher number 34 is from Hall, Goepel & Company for $345 for marine insurance Did you actually pay that insurance? A.—I presume I did, because here is the receipt for the full amount: it says. "Received from Messrs. Munsie & Co. the sum of $345, being premium of marine insurance on the hull of sealing schooner "Carolena," and on catch, namely, $2,500 on hull of schooner, on a valuation of 60 $4,000, and $1,000 on catch, policy to be issued subject to the usual conditions. VHall, Goepel & Company, agents for California Insurance Company." The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What is the date of that? Witness:—The 4th March, 1886. Q.—Was it a voyage or time policy? 7 3° 4° So 60 Q.—There is no doubt you paid that? A.—I paid it at the time, but whether I had any rebate or not, I am not prepared to say. Q.—I believe you made inquiries as to whether you got a rebate or not, and you were unable to ascertain? A.—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That covered the vessel for a year? Witness:—That covered the vessel for a year. I was under the impression that I would get the vessel back, and after she was insured I did not care to cancel the policy, and just how long that policy ran I am not positive, as I have forgotten. Mr. Hall, who is now here, has forgotten himself, and the company is not in existence. (Examination by Mr. Peters continued.) Q.—As you expected to get the vessel back you did not cane-el the policy? A.—I did not cancel the policy at the •||lge, but how long I let the policy run I do not remember. Q.—You stated that at that time you did not keep any books? A.—I did not keep any. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What would be a fair rate of premium for a sealing voyage? Witness:—From ten to fifteen per cent. . Q.—That is for the year? Witness:—Jusc for the time it would be at a rate of from ten to fifteen per cent., with a, little added for the unexpired term. At the present time they leave here in January, and iliey don't get home until the latter part of October. We pay about nine months premium at the present time. (Examination by Mr. Peters continued.) Q.—Look at voucher number 35, and state what that is? A.—This is an original voucher for $12.50 for potatoes put on board the schooner "Carolena." Q.—Look at voucher 36 and state what is is? A.—This is a vouche'i' for groceries and ammunition, etc., it amounts to $488.37. Q.—Is that the original bill? A.—That is the original bill at the time. It is from the firm of Carne & Munsie. Q.—The firm of Carne & Munsie furnisheel goods te> the schooner "Carolena" to that extent? A.—Yes, goods to that value. Q.—Anel these goods were all put on board her? A.— Yes, that bill is dated May 18th, 1886. That is included in that amount for ammunition. Commissioner on ihe part of the United States:—How much does that leave you for provisioning? A.—It would leave 420 odd dollars. ' (Examination by Mr. Peters continued.) Q.—There are several other bills for provisions that went on board the Carolena that year? A.—Y'es. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—For what time was the "Carolena" provisioned when she left here? Witness:—We were not as experienced in provisioning vessels then as we are neiw, and we cah-ulated that H wonhl lO 20 30 40 50 60 99 be feu- the season, although the Captain was provided with some money, so that in the event of his running out of provisions he could go to Ounalaska or any where else he liked and re-provision. (Examination by Mr, Peters continued): Q.—So that in addition to putting the provisions on board you gave him money so as to let him buy provisions if necessary? A.—Yes. Q.—Look at voucher number 37, and state what that is? A.—It is an original receipt from R. Beak & Company for corned beef and fresh beef put on the "Carolena" and it amounts to $112.36. Q.—Look at voucher 38 and state what that was for? A. —This is a receipt from the Colonial Hotel for board of crew. Q.—Tell the Commissioners what that is for? A.—There is an amount for board of crew and for hams and bacon. In fitting out at Victoria, we have a custom of letting the men board in the hotel while the vessel is at the wharf. We have found that it was cheaper to do that than to have a cook on board and feed the men on the ship while she is lying at the wharf. While we have a cook on board there are always a lot of loafers around the wharf who are glad to get meals, for nothing if they can. Q.—Is that a usual custom? A.—That is the custom with a great many of us. Q.—Is that an original voucher? A.—Yes. Q.—Voucher 39 is a receipt for $92 from Nesbitt & Company for biscuits. Is that for the ship? A.—That is for the ship and it is an original voucher. Q.—Voucher 40 is a receipt for $10.90 from Ar Hoon for vegetables, is that an original receipt? A.—Yres. - Q.—Vouchee 41 is a receipt for $77.10 from Robert Ward & Co., for powder, is that a correct bill? A.—That is the original bill. Q.—How much powder will that include? A.—125 pounds. Q.:—Was that all the powder that was on board the "Car-, olena" then? A.—I will not be positive as to that, there may have been me>re, but I cannot say positively. Q.—What quantity of powder is generally taken on a voyage of this kinel? A. —At the present time we take about 12 twent-five pound kegs, or 300' pounds. . Q.—How mue-h powder used you to take in 1886? A.—I elo not remember now, but 1 imagine I considered what I bought was enough, although there probably may have been some on board. Q.—Voucher 42 is a receipt for $14.50 for cartridges, etc.." from Gutman & Frank. What kind of cartridges did you use? A.—We used brass shells for ten or tweive bore guns; they were breech-loaeling guns and some of them may have} been rifles. I see there is an item here for 300 cartridges to be credited on return, but the vessel never returned and consequently, I presume, the bill was paid. Q.—Voucher 43 is from the Hudson Bay Co. What is that for? A.—It is $13.32 for shot, but I see there is a keg of powder included, and so there was more on board the I schooner than I thought. Q.—I believe that is a duplicate receipt? A.—Yes, that is a duplicate receipt, but the Hudson Bay people are here yet, and can be examined. Q.—Voucher 44 is from the schooner "Carolena" debtor to the schooner "Pathfinlder" for guns and shot, $500? A.— That is for six shotguns at $50 each, four rifles and a thousand pounds of shot. Q.—When was that voucher made out? A.—On May the . 1© 20 3° 4° 100 12th, 1886; that is the original voucher. These guns were supplied from the "Pathfinder." q.—who owned the "Pathfinder?" A.—Myself and Carne. Then, and even now, when ordering ammunition or salt we very frequently have the invoice made out to one vessel, and then we divide to each vessel in proportion to what they get. I have ordered 50 tons of salt at a time and charged it to one vessel, but as a portion was delivered to other vessels we would take a voucher and charge it to each vessel. Q.—And the "Carolena" got from the "Pathfinder" the guns, rifles and shot mentioned? A.—Yes. Q.—That was the voucher made up at the time? A.— Y'es. We use as a rule $60 guns, less 25 per cent, off; then we add the duty, about 25 or 30 per cent., which brings them up to about $50 or $55 each. Q.—That was the class of gun that was on board the " Carolena?" A.—Y'es. If I remember right these were English guns on the "Carolena," but I am not very positive. Q.—Let us understand thoroughly how these guns were bought from the "Pathfinder?" Y'ou would get more guns at once than you would need for one ship, and then you would divide them? A.—We would get 12 or 14 guns at a time, and charge them originally to the one vessel. We would then give two or three guns to different vessels as they required them, and we would give a voucher and charge them to each vessel. ' \ Q.—And as a matter of fact the "Carolena" at that time got that number of guns and rifles? A.—-Y'es. Q.—Voucher 45 is a receipt from Drake & Jackson for $71.10 for legal expenses. Did you actually pay that sum in connection with the schooner "Carolena" for legal expenses? A.—Yes; that was for the preparation of the claims originally. The first bill was rendered on the 5th of September, 1888. Q.—And the bill is for different legal expenses incurred in regard to this matter, and the items speak for themselves? A.—Y'es. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is in the British case, is it? Mr. Peters:—I believe so, but I do not know that the items are actually stated there. Examination bv Mr. Peters continued:— II; Q-—Take voucher 46 and state what that is? A.—Thi3 is a bill for $678.90 from Mi-. A. L. Belyea; the original amount of that bill was $750. Q.—As a matter of fae-i, was an. arrangement made be- 5© tween you as to the amount? A.—I believe there was an arrangememt. Drake & Jackson were preparing the claim originally in 1886, anel it appears that the Government wanted a revision of the claim, and Mr. Belyea then took the matter up. Q-—At whose request? A.—At the request of the owners, myself amongst others, and Mr. Belyea conducted the further business in connection with this and other claims. Q-—Did he make an arrangement for the amount he should be paid for the whole transaction? A.—He was to 6o attend to the whole matter for the sum of $750. Q,—That was a bargain made with vou vears ago? A.— Yes. Q.—Anel before you had any idea that there would be any Convention e>f (his kind? A.—I never dreamt there would be any thing of the kind. Q.—That agreement was made by you? A.—Yres. Q.—As a matter of fact, you did not pay that amount yet? A,—No, I paid part of it only. lot 10 20 3° 40 60 Q.—Only a small portion? A.—Y'es. In this bill I have myself deducted the $71.10 of Drake & Jackson's bill, which 1 had to pay. At the same time, to keep the expenses within the claims I deducted the $71.10. Q.—Y^ou agreed with Mr. Belyea for $750, but when you ' put. in the voucher for Drake's bill you deducted that so as to make the whole thing $750? A.—Yes, Q.—You paid the $71 and you also paid Mr. Belyea something on account of the bill? A.—Y'es. Q.—And there is a regular agreement that Mr. Belyea should get $750" A.—Y'es. Q.—Voucher 47 is a bill for $500 from Willoughby Clark for legal expenses? A.—That was incurred in Sitka, Alaska, and I actually paid it, and this is the original receipt. Mr. Clark defended the case at Sitka. Q.—That was for the whole legal work at Sitka? A.— Yes, for the whole legal work on the part of the "Carolena" at Sitka. Q.—Who was it employed Mr. Clark at Sitka? A.—I believe it was the mast<;r of the "Carolena," or at least so the mate informed me on his return. He said that Mr. Clark offered his services, aud that he would see the case through the Supreme Court of the United States for $500. Q.—Were you drawn upon for this amount? A.—He made a draft on me for $500. Q.—Who was the draft signed by? A.—It was signed by the master, I believe, before he died., Q.—Did you honor that draft? A.—I did not. Q.—Did "you afterwards have to pay the draft? A.—Yes. Q.—I believe some skins belonging to you got into American territory? A.—Yes. Q.—And did Mr. Clark seize them on account of the bill? A.—Yes. Q.—And what did you give him for it? A.—He seized 100 skins, and I was forced to give him 50 skins to settle the bill; the skins were worth to me $750. as it afterwards transpired according to the sale. Q.—So that instead of paying $500 you actualy paid $750 for Mr. Clark's bill? A.—Yes. Q._What year was that? A.—In 1892, I think; it was the year of the seizure of Ihe "Coquitlam" and the skins were on board her. Q.—There is here a bill, voucher number 48, from J. D. Warren for $152. Tell us about this? A.—Captain Warren was a gentleman who was appointed by us to go to Ottawa to re-arrange the claims in conformity with the wishes of the Government; he was a gentleman who had a good deal of experience in sealing. Q.—He went there at the request of all parties? A.—Y.^s. Q.—This receipt reads February 23, 1888, "Received $152 in full for services and expenses attending to claim of the schooner "Carolena" at Ottawa. Signed, J. D. Warrer: " Q.—Was the total expense divided aniongst all the schooners? A.—I presume so, that was my proportion for the schooner "Carolena," and I paid it. Q.—In voucher 49 you make a claim of $250 for personal services. Please explain that. Are you prepared .0 give to this Tribunal any detailed*tems of your own persemal trouble and expenses? A.—No, I am not. Q.—As a matter of fact at the time of the seizure, and for some time afterwards, were you put to a great deai of personal trouble and expense in connection with it? A.—Yes. I spent a great deal of time in connection with it. Q.—You do not pretend to give the items? A.—No, I do not, I paid money out that I kept no account of in gathering information, and I lost a great deal of time for all of which I charged $250. 102 Q.—Do you think the charge is too much? A.—I do not think so. q.—Now, we will pike voueher 33, which amounts to $71.72, ami which is for transport and board of crew, to the Pacific Coast Steamship Company. Will you explain that? A.— It appears that at the time the seizure was made the sailors were pi\t on boa id the steamer and sent, to Sau Francisco, and they were turned adrift destitute. On the strength of a telegram, if 1 remermber correctly, to Mr. Rithet, the Pacilic Coast Steamship Company took charge of them and sent (hem to an hotel and paid their hotel bills, and paid their passage from San Francisco to Victoria. Q.—Did you pay these bills? A.—I did, There is an amount of $40 for passage money and $31.72 for board of men, ex schooner "Carolena" while in San Francisco. 0.—Y'ou had not any doubt they were bona fide bills and you paid them? A.—They appeared to be certified by one of the crew as correct and I paid them. Q.—Now. voucher No. 50 is for the value of the ship, and for that you e.harge $4,000? A.—That includes the vessel as she was rigged, her hull, sails and anchors, and everything of that description, but not the sealing outfit. Q.—And none of the items already mentioned by you heretofore are included in that amount? A.—None of these otn- er items are included in that amount. Q.—As a mater of fact, is that the fair value for that ship as she was? A—Well, I would not like to swear positively. I paid at the rate of $3,800 for her, but there are probably others who are better able to tell the real value of the vessel than I am. Q.—In your own opinion is it a fair value for the ship? A —I consider it fair. • Q.—After you bought the ship did you have anything elone to her before you went sealing? A.—Some trifling re pairs only. Q.—What was she used for after you bought her? A.— After she made the Spring trip, the Dominion Government 'chartered her in 1885 for Dr. Dawson to make a surveying expedition of the coast of Vancouver Island. Q.—Was there any talk of their buying her? A.—Well, Dr. Dawson suggested (hat if the government intended to do any extensive iffirveying lie would like to buy such a vessei. That was all there was to it. Q.—Was the "Carolena" in good condition then? A.— Yes Q.—When she left in 1886, was she in good condition? A.—1 First-class, and in good order. Q.—Was'she repaired often? A.—Just the usual repairs we have to make each year. Before I bought her in 1884, I believe, she had a thorough overhauling. I understood there was a great deal of new work done on her then. New spars, new rigging and new sails, but I gather from the surveyor's report:— Q.—What was 1he "Carolena" built of? A.—Native pine, Oregon pine. Q.—Is that considered to be a^good material? A.—It is. Q.—Were her sails new or old? A —I see by the surveyor's report that she had nev#sails. I do not know whetber they were all new or not but I gathered that from the surveyor's report of 1884 or 1885. ■Q.—:The "Carolena" was in good order in 1886, and you consider $4,000 not an unfair value? A.—It is not unfair. Q.—In 1886 was there a demand for vessels of her description to engage in the sealing business? A.—Yes. Q.—Was sealing on the increase then? A.—It was just beginning to increase. Q.—Yon had nothing to do with sealing in Behring sea before that vear? \ —Not in Behring sea, but I had on the 10 20 4o 60 103 vesesls going to began to go there coast one year. There had been a few Behring sea, but from 1882 or 1883 they more and more until 1886. Q.—Had you been looking out for a schooner for any time before you bought this one? A.—Yes. I think my first sealing venture was in about 1882 or 1883, when I chartered a vessel, but the "Carolena" was the first vessel actually bought— Q.—Had you been looking for one for any time before you bought the "Carolena"? A.—Yes, and the "Carolena" was the first vessel I was able to buy. Captain Spring bought the "Black Diamond," which I had chartered in 1882 or 1883. Q.—Now, as a matter of fact, were you desirous of selling this schooner, the "Carolena?" A.—No, I was not. I bought the "Pathfinder" in addition to the "Carolena." The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—-Mr. Peters, is that evidence going to help us in this case, or are you getting it in for another case? Mr. Peters:—When we come to get at the value of thes^ ships, it is almost necessary that we should look at the value of some other ships besides the one we are dealing with. One may say that the "Carolena" is worth $4,000 and another perhaps $3,000, and we can perhaps get at her exact value and see which of them is telling the truth. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—If you are going to show the sales of other vessels, you ought to prove their condition, tonnage, etc. Mr. Peters:—I am prepared to do so. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you think we should be helped by that? Mr. Peters:—If you look at the case made on both sides in this particular matter you will see there is a great divergence of opinion as to what these sealing vessels are worth. We wish to refer not only to the actual schooners in dispute here, but also to some schooners which are not in dispute— both American schooners and English schooners—to see what they are worth. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—1 have had a good de^al of experience in that direction, and I never found any advantage to come of it, except of the most general character. Mr. Peters:—My experience of getting evidence here is that unless you sift evidence of a general character very carefully it is of very little value. One man says a schooner is worth $150 a ton and another says it is worth $125, and when you come to ask how they make up that calculation you will find they are all different. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What do you propose now? Mr. Peters:—I propose to show that there are ten or fifteen vessels, and that those vessels actually cost so much to build. I propose to show that by th*very best evidence. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not know how such evidence would affect Judge King, but I do not think it would affect my mind in the slightest. The actual sales of similar vessels about this time would give some sort of a clue. Mr. Peters:—I am going ' actual cost of some vessels, better evidence than that. prove the actual sales and the I do not see that I can give any Mr. Peters:—I do not think there will be any very lengthy evidence upon this point. Vouchers No. 1 to No. 50 filed as Exhibit 10, G.B., "Car olena" case. Q.—At that time you say that sealing vessels were in demand? A.—Yes. Q.—And vou were not anxious to sell the "Carolena"? A. —No. Q.—I was going on to ask you whether you had bought' any other vessels besides the "Carolena" and you said you had bought 1he "Pathander"?A. Y'es, in the autumn of 1885, I bought her at Halifax. Q.—Do you remember the tonnage of the "Pathfinder"? A.—66 tons registry. Q.—You are speaking, I understand, of registered tonnage? A.—Always of registered tonnage. Q.—Tell me in round figures what the "Pathfinder" cost you when you landed her in Victoria? A.—That is a little difficult to tell, because there is the wear and tear coming around here, which is hard to arrive at. Q.—What did you pay for her in Halifax? A.—She cost me about $4,500 in Halifax, or within a few dollars of it one way or the other, I am not sure from memory. Q.—You had to bring her around the Horn? A.—Yes. Q.—How much did it cost you to bring her around? A.— In my experience with her and other vessels that I brought around it cost somewhere in the neighborhood of about $2,- 000. Q.—So that the "Pathfinder" would stand you in Victoria $6,500? A.—Something in that vicinity. Q.—What class of vessels do you buy in Halifax? A.— They are a good class of vessels which they use for fishing on the Banks. Q.—It paid you to go to Halifax and buy a vessel there and bring it all the way around Cape Horn? A.—Yes, I think so. » Q.—Did you repeat that experiment? A.—Yes. Q.—What other vessel elid you bring around the Horn?- A.—I brought the schooner "Viva" in 1887. Q.—What tonnage was she? A.—About 92 tons. Q.—What did she cost you at Halifax?-[■'. About $7,000. Q.—And as it cost you $2,000 to bring her around she would stand yon §9,000 in Victoria? A.—Yes, she cost me that in rounel figures, but I cannot say exactly as there is a great deal of wear and tear and loss of gear in bringing a schooner around. 30 105 Q._Did yon get the "May Belle" in 1893? A.—Y'es. Q.—What tonnage was she? A.—She was under 60 tons, about 58 tons. q.—i believe you had a mortgage on her? A.—We had some claim, but I have almost forgotten whether it was a mortgage or not. Q.—Did you buy a vessel called the "Otto"? A.—I bought an interest in her in 1894, I thihk. Q.—What tonnage was she? A.—86 tons. io Q.—You bought a half interest in her? A.—Carne and myself bought a quarter interest in her at the rate of $5,500. Q.—Do you kuow what she cost originally? A.—The party who bought her originally in Halifax told me she cost him $10,000 laid elown here. Q.—Did you luiy the Alary Taylor" in 1890? A.—Yes. She was an old vessel, 50 tons, and she cost about $4,000. We bought her at a private sale. Q.—Who did yon buy her from? A.—We bought her 20 from Mr. Warren. Q.—Warren. I believe, had to sell at that time? A.— i • understood so. Q.—Did you think you had a good bargain on that ship? A.—She was an old vessel, and I gave perhaps all she was worth. Q.—Y'ou say you never saw the "Carolena" after she left the port of Victoria in 1886. Did you get a letter from the United States marshal at Alaska with regard to that ship' \.—Yes. Q-—Wes there an enclosure in that letter? A.—Yes. Q.—The letter and enclosure are as follows: "District of Alaska, "U. S. Marshal's Office, Sitka, November, 1st, 1888. "Me'ssrs. Munsie & Co., Victoria, B. C. "Gentlemen:—I have the honor to inform you that I have received from the llonourable Attorney-General of the United States, orders to release to the rightful owners the 40 schooner 'Carolena,' her tackle, apparel and furniture, as she now lies in the harbor at Ounalaska, in the District of Alaska. The order on the Deputy Collector of Customs at Ounalaska to deliver to you the property is herewith enclosed. Very respectfully, "BARTON ATKINS, •I'. S. Marshal." "District of Alaska, "U. S. Marshal's Office, Sitka, November 1st, 1888. 5° "E. H. Wahl, Esq., U. S. Deputy Collector of Customs, Ounalaska, Alaska: "Sir:—Y'ou are hereby authorized and directed to deliver to the rightful owners, Messrs. Munsie & Co., of Victoria, B. C the seized schooner "Carolena," of Victoria, B. C. her tackle, apparel and furniture, as she now lies in the harbor of Ounalaska. "BARTON ATKINS. "U. S. Marshal." —1 •• 60 Y'ou received this letter and that enclosure? A.—Y'es. Q.—Y'ou received that in the envelope which I now show you ? A.—Yes. Letter, enclosure and envelope filed as Exhibit No. 11 G. B., "Carolena" case. Q.—You received them in 1888? A.—Yes. Q.—And it was the first communication you had with re gard to vour vessel? A.—Y'es. io6 Mr. Dickinson:—The parties were notified of the order for release in 1887, notwithstanding anything the Marshal does now. Mr. Peters:—This is the first notification the owner had from the United States authorities. (Examination by Mr. Peters continued.) Q.—That is the first notice you, yourself, personally, got from the United States authorities that you would get yemr ship back? A.—Yes. Q.—That was the first and only intimation? A.—Yes. And the further examination of the witness was adjourned until the next sitting of the Commissioners. The Commissioners then rose. 30 40 So 60 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 3,1896- At 10.30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. Mr. Peters:—I have a statement made up as to the vouchers given in evidence yesterday, putting them under separate heads and adding up the total of them. I shall present that statement to the Commissioners during the day. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Has counsel for the United States seen them? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes your Honour, I have seen them. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Are there any of those which you wish to go in as evidence? Mr. Dickinson:—All of them, and I should think for the enlightenment of the Commissioners they would have to be printed. The regular printing need not be interfered with, but they can be printed at any time in the appendix. William Munsie.—The examination of this witness in the case of Claim No. 1, The "Carolena," was continued. Examined by Mr. Peters:—Q.—Mr. Munsie, I wish to call your attention to Voucher No. 3, from W. P. Sayward, which was produced yesterday. That voucher contains some charges for shingles supplied apparently to the "Carolena," and 1 want you to explain to the Commissioners how shingles came to be used in the outfit of the schooner? A.—It appears the ballast used is what we call beach gravel, and the gravel was getting down into her pumps. We took the ballast out and we found the seams in the ceiling quite open, and instead of using oakum to calk 'it they drove shingles in. That is what the captain told me the shingles were for. Q.—I wish to call the attention of the court to that, be- cause it seemed to be an item which wanted explanation. (To witness.—You gave some evidence yesterday, Mr. Munsie, with regard to the different supplies you had given to this vessel. I do not know whether you clearly made yourself understood as to how long you considered you were supplying her for? A.—About five months. Q.—Your idea was that you would put in provisions enough IO 40 ko 60 107 for about five months. A.—About five months. She had a smaller crew in comparison to larger vessels, and consequently she did not require quite so much supplies, and the captain being provided with some funds, if he elid run short he was prepared to replenish. Q.—Now with regard to the crew that you had on board that ship, you have already described that they were all white men, and that is correct, is it not? A.—That is correct. Q.—Can you give me the names of the crew? I have taken a note, and I see from the memorandum that their names were Cotsford, Edward Shields, Dupont and A. R. McCoria- hay. Q.—These were the four hunters? A.—Yes. Q.—Were these men of experience, or were they inexperienced men? A.—Well, it was in the earlier stages of the sealing history, and they were all men of experience in those days. Q.—As a matter of fact, in the year 1886 did you pay your captain and your crew their wages? A.—I paid the captain some advances only. The mate and crew were paid up in full to the time they arrived in Victoria. Q.—As a matter- of fact have you made up a statement as to how much you actually paid the crew? A.—About $1,- 900. Q—The amount is exactly $1,902.22? A.—I believe so, Q.—You have made that up from vour book I believe? A. —Yes. Q.—Is that your original book showing what you paid to the crew? A.—That is the original book. Mr. Peters:—This book is open for the examination of my learned friend, but we have taken the figures from that book, and the amount exactly paid according to it was $1,902.22. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—3 would like you to give details of that now, and I would like to know whether they were paid by the voyage, or by the month, or how? Mr. Peters:—I shall do that. (To witness) Q.—Can you tell us from that book how much Captain Ogilvie was paid outside of that $500 which you ad vanced him? A.—He had about $300 in advance. Mr. Dickinson:—Besides the $500? Witness:—It was about $250. By Mr. Peters): Q-—The exact amount I have here is $250.70? A.—Yes, I see (here- is 70 cents for tobacco. Q.—In what way was the master paid? A.—He was getting $50 per monih. :• Q-—And nothing at all for his skins? A.—Nothing for his skins. Q-—What wages elo you allow him in your book? A.—* see him credited here with $50 per month up to the 3rd of August. Q-—From what date9 A.—From March; from February in fact. I see he was credited on March 3rd with $50. ant that first payment was for February. Q.—That is when the season began? A.—Yes. Q.—Now with regard to James Blake, the mate, I have here that he was paid $287.50. Is that right by your book? A.—There appears to be 50 cents difference, it was I think $287. Q-—What was the lay of the mate? A.—The mate had $40 a month and he was to get $1 per skin for what he caught in the ship's boat. io8 I 10 20 40 50 60 Q.—The ship's boat sometimes goes sealing? A.—Yes, it is called the mate's boat Q.—Does it go hunting as a usual thing? A.—Y'es. Q.—Does it hunt as often as the other boats? A.—It goes out sealing. Q.—In this year did the mate's boat go out sealing? A.— The mate's boat does not go out until the other boats have left the vessel, it is simply a sort of pick-up as we call it, and not a regular sealing boat. Q.—As an addition to his wages, the mate gets $1 per skin for all the skins caught on that boat? A.—Yes. Q.—That boat catches less, and in 1886 it caught less than any othe'r boat on the ship? A,—Yes. 1 would like to say right here that the mate hael been ill and did not take any seals at all in that boat that year. Mr. Dickinson:—I would wish, if Mr. Peters would let the witness testify just a little more as to this particular time of 1886. We should confine it to this time for the present. Mr. Peters:—I am referring to this particular year, and we have the fact that in that particular year the mate's boat caught no seals. 'To the witness)—Is that so? A.—That is what he reported to me when he arrived here. Q.—What was hunter Joseph Dupont paid? A.—$1.50 per skin. Q.—I see he was actually paid $244.50. Is that correct? A.—They are not added up in this book, but I believe that amount is correct. He had 163 skins according to his own report on his returning. Q.—Did that include his share of the skins that had been seized? A.—Y'es. Q.—Did it also include the skins caught before they entered the Behring Sea? A.—There were no skins caught before they entered Behring Sea, according to their report to me when they came home. Q.—So that is just his share of the skins caught in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, it is for 163 skins. Q_What did R. McConahay get? A.—I think he got $262.50. It was for 175 skins. Q.—Was he on the same lay as Dupont? A.—Yes. Q.—These men got no wages, but simply got their lay on the skins? A.—That is all. Q.—I have it here that Edward Shields got $291; is that correct? A.—Edward Shields had $291 for 194 skins. He was on the same lay as the others. Q.—I see that John Cotsford got $231; is that correct? A. —Yes, $231 for 154 skins. He was on the same lay. Q.—Now, those are all the hunters on board? A.—Those are all. 1 would mention here that there may be a little difference as to the number of skins on board the vessel, and the number set out here, but we do not pay for gray pups; they were thrown in gratuitously to the vessel. Q.—Gray pups are seals of what age? A.—It is called a gray pup when it is about a year old. Q.—And with regard to these you state that the men get nothing? A.—No, they were given to the vessels. Q.—So far as Behring Sea is concerned, are there any considerable quantity of gray pups got in that sea? A.—A very small percentage. We reckon from one to two per cent., because it varies, and some years there would be more than others. Q.—Where are the majority of the gray pup seals caught? A.—On the California and Vancouver coasts. Q.—And for some reason or another they are not caught in the Behring Sea to any great extent?' A.—No. to 20 30 109 Q.—Now, as regards the seamen, let us take D. Russell. Is this book correct in saying that he received $62? A.—I believe so. Q.—Tell us how the seamen were hired? A.—They were paid on the lay, a percentage of what skins would be worth here in Victoria. I believe their lay was somewhere about the 55th lay or the 60th. But I am not quite sure now. Q.—What does that mean? A.—Well, it would be one skin in 55, but in those days we made our own prices, as it were. For instance, if the skins were worth $7 we would try to make a little, and allow them on a valuation of $6 or $6.50. That would allow us a little to cover expenses. Q.—Now coming down to this particular year of 1886, I see that you paid Russell $62? A.—I see he is credited here "by skins, $77," but I paid him $62. Q.—So far as Bussell is concerned, you did not quite pay him all that was due? A.—There is a balance still due him of the difference between $62 and $77. Q.--I have T. McLarty down here as getting $81 ? A.— He has been over-paid, because $77 was his lay also. Q.—He was on the same lay as the others? A.—Y'es. Q.—I have William Knox down here as having received $53. How much was coming to him? A.—$77. Q.—So that he was not paid in full? A.—Not in full. The difference between $53 and $77 is still due him. Q.—I have James Munger down here as having been paid $46? A.—There is a balance due him of the difference between $46 and $77. I will say there is an apparent balance due them, yet there is not. I will explain that. Wben they came home I told him I was not responsible for their wages after the time of the seizure. They said they were destitute and that if I paid them up, either in full or in part, they would give me an assignment of their wages. I made the best terms I could with each of them,- and these are the amounts I paid them, and I took an assignment of their wages Q.—So far as this claim is concerned, you stand in their shoes? A.—Exactly. Q.—You claimed you were not. liable to pay them after the seizure. A.—Yes. Q.—Have you got these assignments; were they in writing? A.—They were in writing. Q.—lla\e you got theun? A.—I have not. Q.—Where are they? A.—It appears they went to Ottawa with some other papers, and from there to Washington during the time Captain Warren was there, and these vouchers that are duplicates or some of them also went to Ottawa and were never returned. That is one reason, I presume) that I had to get some duplicate vouchers. The vouchers -q all went to Ottawa, and I believe that when Captain Warren was at Washington he had them there also. - Q.—You have made enquiries to try and get them? A.—I have made enquiries, and I think that I have a copy of a letter from the department in reference to them, in which they give about the amount of wages, and they must have got them from the assignments, because there was no other, way to get them. That is the-explanation why I have not got the assignments. Q.—I see here that Walter Tennyson was paid $93. A.—He Qo was over-paid. The amount coming to him was $77. and I actually paid him $93. Q-—How did you come to over-pay some of these men? A.—Well, some of them had advances and others vrere really destitute, and had no means of getting along. I had to "■o responsible for the board of some of them. I made the best terms I could with them and took the assignment, not expecting the delay in settlement would be so long, or I never should have done it. It was merely to assist them in the meantime. 40 no Mr. Peters:—With regard to the vouchers produced yesterday, I have had them totalled up, and for the convenience of the Commissioners I will put them in. They are divided under different heads, and are as follows: Outfit, other than provisions, guns and ammunition $ 2,721.05 Provisions 950.78 Guns and ammunition 605.01 Sundries 1,723.72 IO Value of schooner 4,000.00 $10,000.56 That is outside of these wages. Q.—Now, Mr. Munsie, I want to come to another matter. In 1886 you had another sealing vessel, I believe? A.—Yes. Q.—That was the "Pathfinder." A.—Yes. Q.—She hunted in Behring sea? A.—Yes. ■ Q.—Can you tell me the number of boats or canoes that 20 the "Pathfinder" had? A.—She had five boats. O.—Had she any canoes? A.—No canoes. Q.—Was she manned by white men? A.—White men. Q.—No Indians? A.—No Indians. Q.—In these 5 boats do you include the ship's boat, or had she five boats besides the ship's boat? A.—She had five regular sealing boats. Q.—Anel a ship's boat too I understand? A.—I do not remember whether that year she had a ship's boat or not. Q.—She had five regular sealing boats, with regular hunt- ' ers for each? A.—Regular hunters for each. Q.—How do the hunters that you had on the "Pathfinder" compare with the hunters that you had on the1 "Carolena" as regards capability? A.—They were about the same class of hunters. Q.—The "Pathfinder" I believe was not interfered with in 1886? A.—She was in a way. ' Q.—But she was ne>t actually interfered with? A.—She left the sea voluntarily on account of hearing of the seizures. Q.—Do you know when she left the sea? A.—The cap- aq tain tells me about the fourth of August. Q.—As a matter of fact how many seal skins did the "Pathfinder" bring home that year? A.—1,766. Q.—And she had fished until the 4th of August, so far as you understand? A.—Yes. Q.—Who was the captain of the "Pathfinder?'? A.—Wit liam O'Leary. Q.—Is William O'Leary here? A.—He is is here. Q.—And who was her mate? A.—I believe his name was Davidson, but I am not positive. So Q.—Now the "Pathfinder" brought home 1,766 skins, as you understand, caught up to the 4th of August? A.—Yes, that is the information I received from the captain. Q.—At that time9 A>-And since that. Q—Did you get these skins? A.—He delivereel to me 1,- 766 skins. Q.—There is no doubt about that? A.—No doubt. Q.—Do 3rou remember at what date the "Pathfinder" sailed in that year on that voyage? A.—I cannot say positively (5o the day of her clearance. That was her first year here. She came around from Halifax. I do not remember when she cleared from here, but she did not do any sealing on the coast and went direct to the Behring sea. She arrived in the sea ahead of the seals as I was informed by the captain, and I do not think she got. any seals until July. Q.—So that as far as you understand, what seals the "Pathfinder" got were caught in Behring sea? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you dispose of those seal skins that year, and at to 20 30 40 SO 6o 111 what price? -V.—Yes, I sold them for $7 per skin as they ran. Q.—Did you sell them in the summer or in the fall of 1886? A.—I sold them on the arrival of the "Pathfinder" that same year. Q.—Who did you sell them to? A.—I sold them to Joseph Boscowitz, who is engaged in the business of buying furs. Q.—And you actually received for them $7 per skin? A. —Y'es, $7 per skin. Q.—If you had received the catch of the "Carolena" could you have sold them at the same price? A.—Well, I could not swear that. Q.—What is your opinion, is there any reason why you should not? A.—There is no reason Why I should not. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—How many skins could the "Carolena" stow away? A.—About 7,000. (By Mr. Peters:) Q.—There would be no trouble in stowing the skins? A.— None. Q.—If you had the "Carolena" filled up with skins, you could stop sealing, I imagine? A.—Y'es. Q.—Now. I want to ask you again, did you continue the sealing business in the year 1887? A.—Yes. Q.—If you had had the "Carolena" was it your intention to seal with her that next year, 1887? A.—It was. Q.—-Where would you have sent her? A.—I would have sent her on the coast and to Behring Sea. Mr. Dickinson:—Your Honours, I desire merely to state that the last question is the second step taken in going into the probable catch of "Carolena" in 1887 and in succeeding years. Now, of course, from the declaration in the claims, and from these questions, it is apparent that my learned friends are about to pursue proof, teuding to show the probable catch of the "Carolena" for the next year, 1887. That question will doubtless come up, as appears by the claims heretofore presented, and by the testimony, or that which was called testimony, before the Paris Tribunal. I refer to the question of future profits. We are prepared to argue that question now, or of course take the direction of the Commissioners as to whether they will receive that class of testimony now, and listen to the argument later. We are prepared to show your Honours beyond question that this class of damages cannot be allowed, and we will show that both by the decision of the courts and by the decision of international Tribunals of Arbitration. We simply wish a suggestion of the Commissioners as to when they would like to hear us upon the question. The Commissioner on the [>art of the United States:—For my own part T had supposed it was understood between counsel that these great questions were to be argued at the close of all the testimony. Mr. Dickinson:—Vera well, I simply wish to be understood as not allowing this testimony to go in apparently by our consent. I interposed this statement so that the record will show that it goes in against our objection, and that we shall in this case and in all cases contend that future profits in any e:ase cannot be consielered as a proper measure of damages, notably and especially in cases where the seizure resulted in a total loss to the owner. Mr. Peters:—So far as we are concerned, it appears to us that it would be almost impossible to argue this question at this time. Mv understanding was, and I think 'fibe CoraSSpS; 112 ill IO 40 50 60 sioners also understood it, that these questions should be argued at the end, when the matter can be properly and clearly put forward in the shape of a written argument. This question which is now raised by my learned friend is one, of course, which we have come here prepared to meet, and it will be a very large question in this case. I may also point out that in the several cases which come up, the circumstances of each of them, with rogard to this particular matter will be different. It would be almost impossible for the Commission at this time, without knowledge of the evidence, and without having the facts laid before them, to come to any conclusion which would be satisfactory. My learned friend tenders an objection to this testimony, and of course it will be understood all through that he enters that objection. Mr. Dickinson:—And taking as little time about it as possible. Mr. Peters:—Very well. The Commissioner on the part of the U/nited States: —Y'ou have claimed for this estimated catch in 1887? Mr. Peters:—It is formally put forward in the claim. Mr. Dickinson:—It is not so specified in the claim, but it is probably included in the general affirmation of damages. Mr. Peters:—If my learned friend would excuse me, it is specially mentioned in the claim. Paragraph 5 sets out: "By reason of the premises further prosecution of the-said sealing voyage during the year 1^86 was wholly prevented, and the owner of the said schooner was also prevented from using her for the purposes of seal hunting during the year 1887, as he otherwise would have done, .and finally the said schooner, her tackle. apparel, outfit and cargo, were wholly lost to those interested in the same, and other loss, damage and expense, were suffered and incurred by the persons so interested." You will find the same claim put forward in the schedule of the British case in the exhibit of the declaration setting out this claim. The Commissioner on the part of Ile'r Majesty:—Unless it is clear to both of us that an objection is well taken, I think it would be a better method to let the formal argument take place at a future date. (Examination of witness continued by Mr. Peters): Q.—Now in the year 1887 did you as a matter of fact send any of your other vessels to the Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—What vessel did you send to the Behring Sea in 1887? A.—I sent the "Pathfinder." Q.—Who was the captain of the "Pathfinder" in that year? A.—I believe it was Captain O'Leary. Q.—In that year she was not seized? A.—No. Q.—Can you ledl me how many seals the "Pathfinder" caught in the Behring Sea in the year 1887? That is, how many seals did they bring home to you? A.—From the Behring Sea alone? Q.—Give me them all together? A.—If my memory serves me, it was about 2,813 or 2,814 for the season. Q.—You include in that the coast catch and the catch in the Behring Sea. A.—Yes. Q.—Have you any means of showing how many she caught in the Behring Sea? A.—I think there is a memo, in the small book the-re that shows it. Q.—What is that book? A.—It is a small memorandum book that we kept their wages in. IO 20 30 50 60 113 Q.—Who was that book kept by? A.—By Mr. Carne. Q.—That was your partner? A.—In the grocery business. Q.—Was Mr. Carne interested in the "Pathfinder?" A.— He was. Q.—And he kept a book which purports to show what? A. —The amount of wages earned by each member of the crew. Q.—And from that amount of wages can you judge the number of seals each man caught? A.—I would not like to say. I see the amount given in dollars, but I have forgotten for the time what amount they got per skin for that year. Q.—In that same book is there a memo, made by yourself showing the catch of seals? A.—The memo, was made by myself. Mr. Dickinson:—I understand this is a memorandum made by the partner after the return of the ship, Mr. Peters--—This is a memorandum made in that book by himself at that time. Mr. Dickinson:— fie was not on the ship. Mr. Peters:—No. (Examination by Mr. Pete»rs continued. Q.—That memorandum shows the number of skins actually caught for the season? A —Yes, 2,814 skins. Q.—Does that show how many of these were caught in Behring sea and how many outside? A.—I do not think the memo, shows it, but I believe there were 945 caught outside of Behring sea. Q.—And the balance was caught in the sea? A.—Y'es. Q.—That information you e>f course take from what your captain told you? A.—Not exactly. I take it from the skins given to me before she entered the sea, and from the captain as well. These skins were delivered before the vessel entered the sea. Q.—The 945 skins were actually delivered to you before she went into the sea? A.—Y'es. Q.—There can be no doubt about that? A.—No, I do not think so. Q.—Do you know when the "Pathfinder" entered the Behring sea in 1887. A.—I do not remember that, but T presume Captain O'Leary could tell. Q.—How many boats did you have on the "Pathfinder" in the year 1887? A.—Six boats. Q.—That is one more than you had the year before? A. —Yes. Q.—And you had a corresponding number of hunters in 1887? A.—Yes, a corresponding number of hunters. Q.—Had she a ship's boat in addition? A.—I do not remember, but she had these six regular sealing boats. Q.—And she had no' canoes, and no Indian hunters? A.— No. Q.—How do the hunters that you had in 1887 on the "Pathfinder" compare with the hunters you had on the "Carolena" in 1KS6. A.—They were about the same class of men. I notice that two of them. Shields and Dupont, had been on the "Carolena." Q.—Had you any other vessel hunting seals in the Behring sea in 1887? A.—No. Q.—Now leaving out the amount of seals you got in 1887 can you tell me the price of seal skins in 1887? A.—About $6. Q.—Where did you sell jTour seal skins that year, and to whom did you sell (hem? \.— I sold 2,320 to Jos. I'llman of New York, or to his agent here. I see that 493 were sold in small lots, but I hive forgotten whom they were sold to. vhr^f Hi! 10 20 30 40 <?9 114 q.—All the> skins you dealt in thai year were the skins from the "Pathfinder''? A.—Yes. q,— it is called to my attention that I did not ask you ihe number of seals the "Carolena" was supposed to have caught in 1886? What number do you claim were caught? A.—I paid the hunters for 684 skins, but as I say you will find a little discrepancy there. I see from the inventory that there were a few grey pups on board that I did not pay for. I would not have to pay for them as they belonged to the vessel, and they were thrown in. Mr. Dickinson:—1 might as will dispose of the grey pups, by asking my learned frienel whether he charges the United States for the pups? Mr. Peters:—Most unquestionably I do, if they took our pups why should they not pay for them. We will give evidence as to their value. (To witness): Q.—What is the value of these grey pups as a general rule? A.—At the present time we sell the skins as they run, and they are worth as much to us as the best skins we have got. But in 1886 they were not sold in that way. We sold them then for about $2.00 apiece, of course they were much smaller than the seals. Q.—I think I am right in saying that they weigh 1\ pounds? A.—About 3-J. Q.—And the ordinary skin weighs from 8 to 10 pounds? \ .—Y'es. Q.—I am told, Mr. Munsie, that the highest price that was given for these grey pup skins in 1886 was about $1.75? A.—Well, from $1.50 to $2.00. I think I got $2.00 for mine, but I am not positive. I believe I sold some skins to Mr. Spring, and I.believed he allowed me $2.00 for them. These were the grey pups I got on the coast. Of course the buyer gets them as cheap as he can. Mr. Peters:—T would like to state to the Commissioners at this point that this witness is in a position to give very clear evidence as to the catches in the years 1888, 1889 and 1890, which will afterwards be necessary to be enquired into by this Commission. But as these years have noih ng to do with the present case, I do not propose to exnutine! him about them at the present time. The Commissioner on the part of the I'nited States:—Mr. Peters,.how does the- lav of hunters and crew of 1887 compare with that of 1886? Mr. Peters:—I will ask that question. (To witness)—Q.—Was there any difference in the lays? A.—Yes, I believe there was, but I hardly know what the price was in 1887, as ii is not marked here. It would be about $1.25 or $1.50 per skin. Q.—Probably Mr. Carne might explain that later on. A. —Yes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Have you computed the average lay per skin for 1887? Mr. Peters:—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How much is it, including the hunters and the crew? Mr. Peters:—I intend, your Honour, to put in a written statement on that point. (To witness!—Q.—Generally speaking, you say there 'was a difference between the lay of 1886 and the lay of 1887, but I I IO you cannot give the exact difference? A.—I cannot give it; I will not say positively that it was different. Q.—Y'our partner, Mr. Came, who kept that book, would be able to state? A.—He might. Q.—In any case that book shows actually the amount that you really did pay to the crew that year? A.—In dollars, yes. -Q.—So that, so far as the "Pathfinder" is concerned, that book shows you the amount you got for the skins and the amount you paid out for them? A.—Y'es. Q.—Tell me the amount you paid, including lay and everything else, for that year? A-—The amount of wages paid on account of the "Pathfinder" for 1887 was $8,692.42, and that includes the lay and wages and everything else. Q.—What was the amount of the outfit? A.—I do not remember; it is not stated here. Q.—How many were there in the crew? A.—Well, there would only be about four or five men. Q.—And the lay? A.—There would be the captain and 20 the mate on wages and the hunters at so much per skin. The hunters would take so much per skin. There would be five men on the lay. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The crew would take five fifty-fifths, or one-eleventh? Witness:—Yes. By Mr. Peters:— Q.—Now to come to this inventory. There was an inven- 3° tory taken from the "Carolena," of which I have been served with a copy and which I propose to put in evidence. This purports to be the inventory. "Received from Captain C. H. Abbey, commanding U. S. steamer "Corwin," above-mentioned property, which I hold until demanded by legal authority. Signed 'Anderson,' dep-~ uty United States Marshal." Q.—Have you seen that? A.—Yes. This receipt, given by the deputy United States Marshal to jo the commander of the "Corwin," is a partial inventory. (Paper marked Claim No. 1—Exhibit 12 G. B.) Q.—This gives 685 fur seal skins? A.—684 was what I believe I paid for. 'Q.^-There were also twelve grey pup skins and one hair"- seal skin? A.—I have no account of them whatever. Q.—But they were apparently on board the ship when seized? A.—Yes. Q.—There is also one yawl, and that, I suppe>se, would be 5° the boat you speak of? A.—Yes. Q.—And there are four canoes? A.—Yes. Q.—Now, there is a statement in this "Exhibit 12": "Three coils of line, small, two and a ha.lf inch Manilla; one coil of line, small, four inch Manilla." And they ace marked outside of the statement "poor." Have you examined the vouch-- ers you produced yesterday to see what thsee were? A.— They ought not to be poor, for it was marked in the vouchers "American Rope." 6o Mr. Dickinson:—Even American rope wil ret old. Mr. Peters:—It was bought in May, 1SS6, aud seized in August, 1886. (Te> witness.) Q.—As a matter e.f fact, was it American rope? A.—I can only go by the vouchor, and the vouche'-r- says it was American rope, and {.ho American rope was considered the best rope in those days. In fact, I do not know II ' J 10 20 30 40 50 69 116 but that it is to-day. We usually call for American rope, and the- voucher says it was American rope. Q.—When was that bought? A.—It was bought in the spring of 1886. Mr. Peters:—There is another inventory which I wish to put in anel which was received in the same way. It sets out I large number of things that were on board of the ship. (To witness.) KM—I want to ask you this, Mr. Munsie, in counection with these inventories, do you pretend from your memory to give a detailed statement of what was on board that ship? A.—I cannot. Q.—Does this inventory include things that you have poi mentioned at all? A.—H includes things that are new to me and that I had forgotten about. Q.—And that actually appear to have been taken from the ship? A.—Yes. I am not sure but that I was a little in error about the 6S4 skins. I see there are 686 here, and that would account for the two skins. Mr. Peters:—I beg to hand in Ihe following schedule: "Inventory Articles on board the schooner 'Carolena,' of Victoria,- P.. C, seized by the U.S. Steamer 'Corwin,'-seized for violation of law and killing seals in the waters of Alaska." (Paper marked Claim No. 1—Exhibit 13, G. B.) (Examination by Mr. Peters continued.) Q.—I wish to call your attention to this invent e>ry, Mr- Munsie. It begins in this way: "One schooner, the 'Carolc- na,' of British Columbia, one fore-sail, fail. one main-sail, fair; one jib, fair; one stay-sail boom, topping jib, poor;" and then there is a long list of articles which are all supposed to be marked "poor." As a matter of fact, is there any reason for calling these things poor, or were they in good order? A.—Well, they were all the best we could get here at the, time. Q.—At the bottom of the inventory you will find noted the chronometer you have spoken of, by Thomas Hewitt, and lhat is also described as "poor." It is the same number you have spoken of numbered SB- A.—The master of the "Harvest Home," from whom I bought it. told me it cost him fifty pounds stealing. Q— And what did you pav for it? A.—I paid $160. but e>f course as to the real merits of the chronometer I cannot speak personally. Q.—It wTas in good order as far as you know? A.—Yes. Q.—I see here in the inventory there is noted an English ensign, which is also marked "poor." Is there any reason why that should be called poor? A.—It may have been old, but it is a sjood flag all the same. I do not know how old it was. Mr. Dickinson:—Wo will concede your Honours that that ensign may be old, but it was never poor. Mr. Peters:—That was not the opinion of the Uniteel States marshal at Sitka. Mr. Dickinson:—The United States marshal was wrong. Mr. Peters:—I am glad to hear you say so. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We do not expect it to be any poorer when we get through with this hearing. (Examination by Mr. Peters continued): Q.Yesterday you made the statement with regard to the "Carolena" thai the accommodaion on board was not very 20 30 H7 good? A.—I did not mean that it was not good, but it was limited in space. Q.—She was a small vessel? A.—Yes. Q.—Wih regard in the bed-clothing and mattresses on board the "Carolena" did they belong to the ship or to the crew? A.—They belonged to the crew, who found their own bedding. Q.—Is that the usual custom? A.—It is the usual custom. Q.—Y'ou have inserted a claim for interest in this matter !0 and you put it down at seven per cent., will you tell me what the usual rate of interest is in Victoria? Y'ou have already stated that on the mortgage of the ship you paid 12 per cent, per annum, but what is the usual rate on commercial matters here? A.—Well, one per cent, per month was the usual rate of interest in 18S6, and along in these years, and I believe the bank rate at the present time is about eight per cent. Q.—As a matter of fact, assuming that for the purpose of replacing the schooner, and putting yourself in the same position, you had borrowed in 1886 whatever (he amount of damages would have been worm up to the present time, woukl seven per eent. be a large rate of interest to pay for —It would be a low rate. 0.—Could you have got it for less? A.—I could not get il for that. (j.—So that when you charged seven per e-e nl. you are charging what vou rem Id not have got the monev for? A.— Y'es." Q.—Would you have had to pay more? A.—Yes. Q.— You have given us the names of the? crew of the "Carolena" now will you tell us what has become of them. Captain Ogilvie is dead? A.—Yes. QWhere is Janmes Blake? A.—He is dead. Q.—Where is Dupont? A.—I believe he is dead. Q.—Where is McConahay? A.—I understand he is dead also. Q— Where is Edward Shields? A.—He i3 dead. He was lost on the "May Belle" last year; he was master of the "Mav Belle" and the wssi 1 and all hands were lost. Q.—Where is John Oorsford? A.—I understand he is 5n Seattle. Q.—Have you been able to find him? A.—No. Q.—Have you made enquiries about him. .A.—Y'es, but I have not been able to find him. Q.—Where is D. Russell? A.—At last accounts he was m Seattle, but I do not know where he is. I have written him a letter, but got no answer. Q.—Where is T. McLarty? A.—I am not sure whether h 50 is dead or not, I have lost the run of him. Q.—Have you made enquiries for;.McLarty? A.—Y'es. I rather think that he is dead, because on making enquiries a short time ago, I think some of his friends told me he was dead. Q.—Where is William Knox? A.—I do not know where he is. I have no trace of him. I have not been able (o find him. Q.—Where is James Munger? A.—At last accounts be was in Seattle. 6° 0-—Have you communicated with him? A.-— Ye's. Q.—Have you ever heard from him? A.—No. Q.—Where is William Tennyson? A.—I do not know where he is. I have made enquiries and can find out nothing about him. Q.—With regarel to James Blake, who is dead, he puts in a claim for personal damages, for arrest, and one thing and another. Do. you know when he dieel? A.—I maele a note somewhere at the time of his death, but I do not remember just now when he died. 40 u8 ■s& Q.—\\ here did James Blake live? A.—He lived in Vic 10 40 Q.—Was he I H lined man: A.—Not to my knowledge. 60 A — Q.—Was he a middle-aged man? A.—Yes, a middle-aged man. He was a seafaring man. Q_He was a capable man? A.—I understood him to be Q._Had he been in your employ for any length of time? 4 That was his first season in my employment. '()—Do you know what employment he went into afterwards? A—No, I do not. I rather think he went fishing. He bought a sloop and went fishing. That is my opinion, but I will not say positively. 11111 Q_Was Captain Ogilvie a married man? A.—Not to my knowledge. . Q_Was he an elderly man or a young man? A.—An elderly man. Q.—How long was he employed by you? A—mat was his first season. (J.—And his only season? A.—Yes; he died. q. Had he resided in Victoria for any length of time? A.—I do not know how long, but I had known him for some years. v Q.—Had he been a seafaring man always? A.—Yes. q There was a place named Kyoquot mentioned yesterday; where is that? A.—It is on the northwest coast, of Vancouver Island. It is an Indian reserve'. q.__IS it a place of call for sealing vessels? A.—A number of vessels seal out of that port. q. Have any English people establishments there? Yes. q —Have vou one? A .--I have. q —You keep a store there? A.—A trading store. Q._Did you keep one there in 1886? A.—No; not there. q__Is it the habit of the schooners to store their skins there? A.—They sometimes are in the habit of landing them there for trans-shipment to Victoria. Q.—That would be the coast catch? A.—Yes, some vessels do that, but not all. Ht^: Q._Before they proceed to Bemring Sea they land their coast catch there? A.—There and elsewhere. q. Where did you have a trading store in 1886? had a store at Esperanza Inlet. q _\\l,en did you establish your store at Kyoquot? Not until (he present season. Direct examination closed. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson. q._Mr. Munsie, what is your present business? A.—I am interested in several businesses. q—What are they? A.—Lumbering, sealing, mining and fishing. . q—Are vou out of the grocery business.' A—ves. q _what was your business in 1885? A.—Provision merchant, s , „ q._Y'ou were a partner of Mr. Carne's? A.—Yes. q. Was there any one else in the firm? A.—No. q what had been your business previous to that? A. I was a mechanic in the Albion Iron Works here. q—What branch of mechanics? A.—I was a patternmaker I started for Mr. Sprat, and got up m 1878 all his patterns for the first stoves that were made in the province. 0—What is your present age? A.—I recognize the 4th day'of January as my birthday. In 1849 I was born. I will be 48 years in one month and one day. q— Are you a native of this province. A.—I am a native of Nova Scotia. A.—I A.— 10 20 4o 60 119 Q.—How long have you known Mr. A. J. Bechtel, from whom you borrowed money? A.—About twelve years, I think. Q.—Y'ou knew him in 1886? A.—Y'es. Q.—What was his business in 1886, besides bis hotel business? A.—I do not know that he was engaged in any other business. He had been a miner. Q.—In this province? A.—I understand so. Q.—You are very good friends? A.—Well, yes. Q.—And have been for many years? A.—About twelve years ago, I think, was my first acquaintance with him. Q.—Was it 12 years in 1886, or is it 12 years now ? A.— No, it was about 12 years ago from the present time, or perhaps 13 years. That was really my first acquaintance with him; although I had known him by sight I was not acquainted with him. Q.—So that you have known him since 1883? A.—About 1883, I think. Q.—And all that time he kept an hotel? A.—I think he did, but I am not quite positive. He was in the hotel when I first really got acquainted with him. Q.—Did he aid vou in getting up these claims? A.—No. Q.—Not a! all?' A.—Not at all. Q.—Were thev got up in his hotel, or in his place'? A.— No. Q.—Were they prepared in his office? A.—No. Q.—Or in his presence? A.—No. Q.—Are you quite sure about that? A.—Positive. They were prepared in Drake & Jackson's office. Q.—He was not present in the course of the preparation? A.—No. Q.—Not at all? A.—Not to my knowledge. Q.—Now, the shares were twenty-one and one-third each in the ship? A.—What have you reference to? Q.—To the ship "Carolena," in regard to which this hearing is had? A.—My first shares were 21; there are 64 shares in the ship. Q.—And twenty-one anel one-third shares would make just a third of the ship? A.—I presume so. Q.—Now, if the value of the ship had been $2000 this peculiar sum of $667, that got into all the" bills of sale, would be just one-third of the $2000, would it .not? A.—I have not divided it, but 1 presume it would be, approximately. Q.—It would be about $2000 for the whole ship, according to this figure of $667 in this bill of sale, instead of $3800? A.—I suppose so. Q.—And one-third of the $3800 would be how much? A —$1260 odd dollars. Q.—Instead of the $667 would it not? A.—Y'es. Q.—And ymi swear that the amount put in the bill of sale was incorrect? A.—I did not say that it was incorrect. Q.—Do you not say that the amount that was put in the bill of sale did not properly represent one-third of the value of the ship? A.—Y'es, I say that. Q.—Did you say that the total value of the ship, as you had estimateel it, between you anel Matthewson and Urquhart, was $3800? A.—Yes." Q.—Yrou and Matthewson and Prquhart, the owners of the ship, estimated her value at $3800? A.—Y'es. Q.—And you say, do you not. that $667 did not properly represent the amount paid for the one-ihird, am I right? A.—I believe so yet, too. Q.—Will you answer the epiestion, my dear sir, and you swore yesterday, did you not, that the $667 in the bill of sale was a mistake? A.—I did not say-if was a misjiake. Q.—You swore that it did not properly repfjgsent the value of that ship? A.—Yes. it does not represent ihe' value of the ship properly. I I IO 20 40 60 120 Q.—And you said it does not represent what you actually paid? A.—That is right. Q.—Y'ou bought first Urquhart's share and got a bill of sale, did you? A.—Yes, for 21 shares. Q.—And you paid how much for it? A.—I believe the consideration was $1,200 odd dollars, it was at the rate of $3,800. Q.—Did you pay it? Y'es. q._How' did you pay it? A.—I paid him part cash and part in Iw'o promissory notes. Q.—And you paid him how much cash? A.—I have for gotten the exact amount, Q.—You cannot tell the exact amount? A.—No. Q.—And you have no books in the office of Carne & Mun sic? A.—Y'es, we had books there. Q.—But you did not pay oett money from your firm for yourself and charge yourself with it afterwards? A.—On some occasions I did, but not on this particular occasion. Q.—Did you yourself have money separate from the account of Carne & Munsie. A.—Y'es. Q.—Where did you keep it? A.—I had a small safe and kept it there. Q.—How much money are you accustomed to keep in your safe? A.—T have had'as high as $10,000. Q.—In the safe. A —Yes. Q.—Do Carne & Munsie keep a bank account? A.—They do. Q.—And did all the time? A.—Yes, since they opened business. Q.—Ybu keep your separate mone'v in the safe? A.—Yes. Q.—And do you keep a bank account? A.—I did not open a bank account until about the year 1890. Q.—How did you pay Urquhart the cash that you diet pay him? A.—I paid him in cash. Q.—In money? A.—In money. Q.—Did you take it out of your safe? A.—Yes. Q.— It was about the date of the bill of sale? A.—No. The cash was paid and two promissory notes, one 1 think for $500 and one for $100. Q.—Dont mind the notes just now. You paid him some money? A.—Yes. Q.—Where? A.—I do not remember where. Q.—Did you pay him near your safe? A.—I elo not remember. Q.— Did yon take the money from the safe. A.—Yes. Q.—You don't know whether you paid him near the safe or not? A.—I do not. Q.—Ne>r in your office? A.—I do not know. Q.—Did you make any minutes of Ihe' payment? A.—I do not know that I did. Q.—Did you take a receipt for it? A.—Yes. Q.—Whe'Ve is it? A.—In (he bill of sale. Q.—That is all? A -That is all. Q.—Is the amount named in the bill of sale the amount oT money yon paid? A.—I think that is approximately the cash I paid. Q.—You remember it was $667? A.—I do not say posi live to the dollar, but about that. Q.—What was the amount of Ihe notes? A.—I think one was $500 or tlmreabouts, and the other was for $100. Q.—And you paid him these? A.—Yes. Q.—When, on maturity? x\.—I have forgotten the time they were drawn now. Q.—Did you pay them in cash or by check? A.—Cash. Q.—Have you looked in the books of Carne & Munsie to see whether you had yourself charged with the amount or cash you took le> pay the»se notes? A.—I have not. Q-—You did sometimes make payments from Carne & IO 20 40 So 60 121 Munsie and had it charged to yourself when you wanted to pay a bill? A.—I have on some occasions. Q.—And you have drawn checks for Carne & Munsie? A. —I presume so. Q.'—Have you looked to see whether these notes were paid by Carne & Munsie? A.—No. Q.—Have you looked to see whether Carne & Munsie paid the $667 for this,Urquhart interest and had it charged to you? A.—They have not. Q.—Have you looked to see? A.—I have not. Q.—It is just possible that Carne & Munsie might have paid that? A.—That was'a private matter-of my own; it had no connection with Carne & Munsie. Q.—To be sure, but you might have paid bills with Carne & Munsie's money and had them charged to yourself? A.— I might. {}.—Now, 21 shares at $667 on the half of one of these three sets of 21 shares each would amount to three-sixths, and that would be just half of the ship, would it not? A.—Yes, about. Q.—And the half of $667 would amount to $333.33, would it not? A.—About that. Q.—Did you ever add $667 to $333 and see what it would make? A.—I do not know that I did. Q.—It makes $1,000, does it not? A.—Y'es. Q.—It makes a representation of one-half of the ship if her value was $2,000? A.—Y'es. Q.—And that is just the amount of the mortgage you gave Mr. Bechtel, was it not? A.—That is the amount of the second mortgage. Q.—And you have lost the first mortgage? A.—I do not know that it is lost. I have had occasion to hunt it up, and I presume it is. Q.—The amount of the other mortgage was just $667, was it not? A.—Yes, so it appears from the record. Q.—And that ran to Bechtel, did it not"'' A.—Yes. Q.—And that was when you bought out Matthewson? A. Yes. Q.—And Matthewson went away mining? A.—Yes. (>.—Wlu'ii you bought the second share you borrowed $667? A.—No. I diet not say that. I borrowed about $500, I think. Q.—The amount of the mortgage was $667, and you did net borrow that amount? A.—I did not. Q.—-You gave him a mortgage for too much? A.— No, I did not consider it was too much. It was sufficient to cover interest. Q.—That is what you stated on direct examination. Do you say it was for interest? A.—Well, it was sufficient to cover interest. Q.—Was it for interest? A.—I presume it was an amount te> cover interest. Q.—Do you swear that is what it was for? A.—No, 1 won't swear, but I presume it was. 0 —You have also sworn you paid it before you borrowed the $1,000. Y'ou swear you paid the $667? A.—I said that the mortgage was cancelled and a mortgage for $1,000 was taken in its place. That: was when I bought Matthewson out. Q.—Did you not swear yesterday, Mr, Munsie, that you paid that interest on the old mortgage? A.—I paid the old interest u]) to the time the new mortgage was made. Q-—Now, that first mortgage that is not here and that you^ cannot find was for $667. and that happens to be just about one-third of the value of the ship if she was worth $2 000'' A.—About. Q-—And at the same time you say that the difference between $500 and $667 you think to the best of your knowledge and belief was interost? A.—Yes. Q-—Now, when you took the second mortgage, Mr. Munsie, 122 10 20 3° 4° 6o and naid that interest, the $667 old mortgage that you gave Bechtel at the time you bought the second share was discharged? A.—It was discharged, Q—And a mortgage for just $333, and the one-third moie, or a one-sixth of the valuation of the ship at $2,000, was put in and if the ship was worth $2,000, the $1,000 represented just half her value, did it not? A.—About that. Q—And at the same time vou increased the number ot shares from 21 to 32? A.—I gave a mortgage on 32 shares to cover the one thousand dollar loan. Q—That is what you said, that you increased the number of shares in the ship when you mortgaged to Andrew Bechtel for the $1,000? A.—I mortgaged 32 shares of the ship tor the loan of the $1,000. . o_Now I want to ask you another question. coining back to that vem said you wished to explain something. Have you anv explanation to give as to the payment of interest em the $667 before vou gave the new mortgage? Have you any explanation to make about that? Did you pay it; A.—I presume I paid the interest up to the day that the new mort- •"a^e was given. T , ° Q.—You did not pay the $167 as interest? A.—No, 1 believe I paid just the amount, of interest due. Q—The interest due on what? A.—From the time that the mortgage was drawn until it was cancelled and the new one issued; that would be nearly six months. Q—Interest em how much money? A.—On f5""- Q._You paid the interest, and how did you pay it; did you nay it in cash or bv check? A.—In cash. Q.—And where did you pay it? A.—I do not remember. n_Did vou take Bechtel's receipt? A.—I think I took the cancelled mortgage, and perhaps.it was endorsed, and perhaps I took the receipt, I am not positive: Q._When did you last see the mortgage for $667? A.—1 do not remember. TOmii/i Q._Did it have any memorandum on it? A.—It wouia have a discharge on it. Q.—Anything else? A.—I do not remember. Q.—You do not remember when you last saw it. a. i ^V-You preserved all these bills down to as low as $1 50 m were furnished the "Carolena." A.-That was on account of the vessel being seized. i^*„TO oi^ ™ns Q—But the supplies were furnished long before she was seized'' A.—Well, it was all in the year 1886. . , S-She was seized in 1886, and yet you show original vouchers for her equipment as early as February andMa|| and April and May, in that year. A.—Yes, it was an in 18of_You show original vouchers for the amount paid at Hie time with the receipts upon *«"? ^T^jy- did o—You preserved vouchers as low as $1.8i>, but you um not m-eserve vouchers of the payment of interest noir the mortgage, nor did you preserve the quittance c.the mort- gage itse f indorsed upon it. You did not preserve it or jou have lost it? A.-I do not know what became of | I have no idea. „ „ . -rr„a O—You have looked for it? A—ies. O-Was the'te any other agreement endorsed upon that last'mortgage,e>r any other writing upon it, except the dis- charec? A.—I do not remember. twi.+^i? Q-There was no agreement between you and Bechtel? A.—Not that I am aware of. Q._Will you swear that there was not? A.—None to mj kDSW-Wili von swear that there was not, whether you have renumbered it or not? A-I do not remember what was °^When"ouSbought the second share from Urquhart in =sas5 123 10 20 40 SO 60 February, 1885, and borrowed the money from Bechtel, there had been no seizures in Behring Sea to vour knowledge? A.—No. Q.—And you and Bechtel, when you borrowed that money did not contemplate there wenild be any seizures; it never entered your mind? A.—It did not enter my mind that there would be any seizures; I do not know what entered his mind. Q.—At the time you gave the mortgage the matter was not in 3'our mind at all ? A.—Not the matter of seizure. Q.—And you have made such a careful search for that mortgage that you have not been able to produce it? A.— I have not been able to find it. Q.—And you cannot tell when you last saw it? I cannot. Q.—And you cannot tell positively as to what agreement, if any, was written upon the mortgage between you and Bechtel? A.—I do not remember of any agreement; I don't see why there should be. Q.—But every other paper, even down to $1.50 for the payment of money in connection with the "Carolena" for supplies, you have brought the original vouchers for? M. Peters:—That is hardly a fair statement of the case. There were many which were not original and which he explained about. Mr. Dickinson:—He has brought either the original or a copy. (To witness): That is so, is it not? A.—I have brought the original or copies for all the vouchers for 1886. Q.—And you have the original or copy of every voucher except this one? A. -I have not the mortgage nor a copy of it. Q.—Can you tell me. Mr. Munsie, how you could remember how to get the duplicates for vouchers ranging all the way down to $1.50? A.—I had a little memoranivm book In which I enter the vouchers as presented, Q.—Did you always enter (he vouchers in the memorandum book as they were presented? A.—At the beginning of that year I thought I would begin to keep a record of what I was doing and that was the first vear I made any entrv at all. Q.—You kept the memorandum of the vouchers as they were presented. A.—Yes. Q.—But you ke'pt no memorandum of the goods as they we're ordered? A.—No, nor I do not to-day. (}.—Y'ou have got a book marked "Carolena, 1886," do you say that these entries were made consecutively from time to time as the vouchers were presented? A.—As the vouchers were handed in to me. Q.—And fhe'v were" made from day to day as they were handed in originally? A.—Approximately say? Q.—These on the front page were made from day to day just as they came in? A.—1 will not say from day to day exactly, but nearly so. this little book. Q.—Y'ou say that these entries were not made first page all at one time. A.—No, they were not. Q.—Nor on the second page? A.—No. Q.—Nor on the third page? A.—No, not at the one time. Q.—As you have already stated these were written down as the bills came in from time to time? A.—Approximately. Q.—And you did not add the date of the bills in the memora ndum ?' A.—No. Q.—Nor the day of the payments? A.—No, Q.—When were the words "paid" written in? A.—At the time they were paid. Q.—And at different (hues as you paid them? A.—Yes, at different times. he amounts were made up from on that II 124 If IO 20 40 •5° 60 Q.—Now. Mr. Munsie, you have presented the mortgage that was made for the f 1,000 (o A. J. Pen-hiel. Yon recognize this paper "Exhibit i) G B," and 1 think you say you have paid that mortgage'.' A.—1 have. Q.—Did you keep any books at the date you paid the mortgage? A.—No. Q.—Did you pay it in cash? A.—Y'es. Q.—Did you pay it in bills? A.—I do not remember what I paid it in. 0-—Do you remember whether you paiel 11 in gokl or in bills' A.—I do not remembet. Q.—Or in siher? A.—Not likely in silver. Q.—Where did you pay it? A.—I do not remember. Q.—You cannot remember wThere you paid the $1,000, but you say yem paid it on or about the date of the discharge? A.—I do not remember where I paid it. Q.—Was Bechtel present? A.—He must have been. Q.—Don't you remember the fact of paying that $1,000 out to discharge that mortgage? A.— I know I paid that money. Q.—You do not remember whether you paid ii to him or whether he was present, but you paid it to him directly? A. —Yes. Q.—Where did you get the cash from to pay him. whether it was in bills or in gold? A.—It is hardly a fair question to ask a man where he gets his money. 0.—I do not me'an where you borrowed ii or anything or that kind? But where did you take it from when you paid it to Horhtel? A.—I took it out of the sealing business. Q.—I refer to the ielentie-al money you paid Bechtel, did you get it out of your safe or out of the bank? A.—I do not remember. Q.—Did you keep any bank account in your sealing business? A.—Yes, in my sealing business I did. Q.—When did you commence that? A.—About 1890. Q.—Now, did ye>u pay this by. check on your sealing bank account? A.—No, I think that was paid in cash, I am almost positive that was paid in cash. Q.—Out of where did you get the money? A.—I had considerable money in my safe all the time. Q—Did you pay the money out of your safe? A.—I am not sure, but I believi I did. Q.—Can you tell whether it was in gold or-bills? A.—I cannot. Q.—And how much money did you have in your safe at the time you paid this $1,000? A.—I do not remember. Q.—Were you still carrying money in your safe? A.—Yes. Q.—When did you open your bank account in 1890? A.— I do not remember the month, but it was some time in 1890. Q.—Have you your bank book to show me at what date you opened your bank account ? A.—I have. Q.—Will you produce that book? A.—1 will, if necessary. Q.—Be good enough to tell us after recess the date you opened your bank account. I do not care to see the inside of your bank book, but look at it and give us the date at which you opened your bank account in 1890? A.—I will do so. Mr. Dickinson:—Your Honours, I would rather continue the cross-examination of this witness after recess. Cross-examination of Mr. Munsie resumed by Mr. Dickinson at 2:15. Q.—The last entry 1 think on the pages shown you in the paper markeel for identification (his morning by the secretary was made in 1886? A.—Yes. I2j 10 30 40 SO Q.—On the first three pages? A.—(Examining) Drake-& Jackson's mav not have been; that one item may not have, been entered. Q.—That is the only one; the others were, yon think? A. —1 think that is the only one. Q.—And this is the book you carried in your pocket? A.— No, I had it sometimes in my pocket, sometimes laying around in my desk: Q.—You kept it about you somewhere? A.—Oh, sometimes I did. Q.- \nd you had made no entry in it for ten years, unless it be that one of Drake's. A.—Not that I am aware of, I wouldn't say that I haven't. Q.—At that time the bills were rendered. A.—They were ■ II rendered within a short time of each other. Q.—You use a reasonably soft pencil, I see. A.—I am not euro what I did use. Q. ■ -The ordinary lead pencil? A.—I presume so. 0 — You sometimes carried it in your pocket. I see a memorandum in the back in 1887—various memoranda—ad- dresse's and matters appertaining to seal fishing and the habits of the fur-seal? A.—Yres. Q.—So that you must have had it around with you? A.— 1 presume I had sometimes. When I speak of 1886 I have reference more to those bills. Q.—Now did you have this book yesterday? A.—I don't think so. Q.—Where did you get it? A.—From Mr. Petera Q.—Mr. Peters had it yesterday? A.—I think so. Q.—The entries are all in pencil. A.—They are. Q.—Did you give us the date that you opened your bank account? A.—Yes. Q.—And what was the date? A.—The 31st day of December, 1890. Q.—And at what bank? A.—The Bank of British Columbia. Q.—Y'ou have kept the account ever since at that bank? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you keep an account in any other bank in Victoria or elsewhere? A.—Not in this line of business, no. Q.—That is. an individual account? A.—No. Q.—And when was it that you had the ten thousand dollars in the safe—as much as ten thousand dollars? A.—After selling the skins from the vessels. Q.—Not at any time before 1886? A.—Not before 1886. Q.—Now, Mr. Munsie, how many of these receipts are duplicates? (Showing witness receipts attached to Exhibit 9.) A.—I am not sure how many, there were a few. Q.—Where did you get the duplicates? You said in your direct examination there were two. Do you change thaff now? A.—I said two or three, or several, I don't remember which. Q.—Now you paid sixty dollars at a time according to your oath? A.—About semi-annually. Q.—Did you pay by cheque? A.—No, I don't remember lhat I did. Q:—Did you pay by cheque after Deceppber, 1890? A..— I do not remember. 60 Mr. Petera:—There are none after December, 1890. Q.—Y'ou don't remember though whether you paid by cheque or not? A.—I do not. Q.—In whose hand writing are the body of the ree'oipt&T A.—(Examining) I cannot t< II you. Q.—They all appear to be in the same handwriting? A.— They appear to be; I don't know whose handwriting. Q.—Were those receipts for these sixty dollar semi-annual payments given you at the time you paid the monej'? A.—I I 126 IO 20 40 50 60 am not positive whether they were or not; I presume they were; I am not positive. Q.—Not positive as to any one of them? A.—No, I do not remember positively. Q.—You cannot select the receipts that are duplicates in the lot? A.— 1 cannot. Q.—They all seem to be in the same handwriting, whether duplicates or not? A.—They seem to be. 0.—To whom did you apply for duplicates? A.—Mr. Bechtel. Q.—Do you know Mr. Bechtel's handwriting? A.—I could not swear to it. Q.—Do you know it? A.—1 do not know it. Q.—Wore there numbers on the receipts when you received them "numbers one to eleven inclusive"? A.—I do not remember now; I presume they were. Q.—Y'ou didn't put them on did you? A.—I did not put them on. Q.—And they have not been put on since they were in your possession have they? A.—Not to my knowledge; I don't remember putting them on. Q.—Is Mr. Bechtel engaged in any other business except this and hotel keeping? A.—I do not know. Q.—He sold you some provisions, did not he; a lot of hams and so on? A.—In those early days I believe he kept a piggery in connection with his hotel, where he cured hams and bacon in connection with his hotel business. Q.—You don't know if he has been engaged in any other business? A.—He was mining, I believe, before he began the hotel business. Q.—Do you know who wrote the ink over the pencil numbers? A.—I do not. Q.—For instance, there (showing witness receipts)? A.— I do not. Q.—It is done there right along isn't it? A.—I can't swear to it. Q.—Do you know how the receipts came to be numbered for the interest payments regularly by Mr.' Bechtel or anybody else? A.—I do not know. Q.^-They were not all written at the same time, were they? A.—Not to my knowledge they were not. Q.—You got them separately six months apart, didn't you? A.—Yes. Q.—And were you present, when they were written? A.— I was not. Q.—They were presemted to you, were they? A.—Yes. Q.—From time to time? A.—From time to time, yes; payments were made with the exception of a few that were mislaid. Q.—And they ran from '85 for five years, didn't they? A.—From '85. Q.—Have you any explanation to make as to how they appear to be written in the same ink and the same handwriting? A.— Unless Mr. Bechtel wrote them himself. Q.—Now, when you made this $1,000 mortgage, you made it upon just half the boat—thirty-two shares, half of sixty- four? A.—Thirty-two shares. Q.—And you still held one-third in your own name that you didn't mortgage? A.—Thirty-two shares were encumbered. Q.—You didn't mortgage that to Bechtel. And afterwards you acquired the remaining share from Matthewson? A.—No; at that time, when the mortgage was made I had acquired the share. q,—go that you owned the entire boat? A.—I owned the entire boat. q.—p>n| you only mortgaged 32 shares? A.—32 shares. Q.—Y'ou just said, as I understood it that tbere was one 20 3o 127 share not mortgaged. There were two shares then not mortgaged? A.—There were 32 shares not mortgaged. Q.—And the undivided half of the boat was not mortgaged. Half of the boat was covered by the $1,000 mortgage? A.—I don't understand you when you say "undivided half." Q.—Well, half thirty-two shares? A.—32 shares was en cumbered. ♦ Q.—Was there any reason, when you owed them a debt of io §1,000 borrowed money, and when you owned the boat, why you didn't put on a mortgage on the entire boat? A.—I considered security on the 32 shares sufficient fou the' loan. Q.—And Bechtel dieln't ask for it? A.—I elon't remember what he asked for. ( Q.—He didn't ask for any more, did he? -V.—Not to my re'collection. Q—At the time of the giving of the mortg.ig s did Bechtel know that you were going into the sealing business? A-—J eoiildn'f answer that question. Q.—Did you hear his American citizenship mentioned? A.—I did not. Q.—You never diet? A.—I wouldn't say I never did; I have later, but J did not know it at the time. Q.—At the time of giving the mortgages? A.—I didn't know at the time of giving the mortgages what nationality he was. I can't swear to ii. Q.—You can't swear to his nationality, of course. I am not asking you that. But did you hear his citizenship discussed? A.—Recently I have. Q.—Had you beard it discussed at that time? A.—Not at that time. Q.—Had you heard anything about his citizenship? Not that I remember it. Q.—Y'ou had known him then since 1882? A.—Hardly that; I think about '83 or '84. Q.—'83 or '84, and you had business dealings with him, and you had not heard it discussed whether he was a citizen or not of Her Britannic Majesty's? A.—I don't know as there was any circumstance's arose that would raise the question. I don't remember of anything that would cause the question to come up of what nationality he was. Q.—But usually yon know your fellow citizens about here, don't you, whether they are British subjects or Americans? A.—I know some are British subjects; others I do not; I couldn't swear what they are. Q.—And you wouldn't swear that, although Bechtel was at the time of this transaction a- friend of yours, you had not heard the subject of his citizenship mentioned, and did not enquire? A.—Not at the time, no. Q.—Now, you have put in a bill for payment of Warren for going to Ottawa? A.— Yes. Q.—Was that the first time that you went down? A.—Do you mean Capt. Warren here now? Q.—Yes. A.—I don't know; I can't answer. Q.—Did you pay him? A.—I don'l remember the time; the receipt will will show the time when he as paid; I think it as about '87. Q.—Did you make up a statement of your claim for him through Mr. Drake? A.—Not for him; no. Q.—Did you make up any statement of claim for Warren to take with him? A.—No. Q.—You said he took with him some of these receipts? A.—He took the receipts with him, but there was no statement of claim made to be forwarded with him. Q.—What did he go for? A.—A claim had been put in in ihe Aulumn of 1886, prepared hy Drake & Jackson. Q.—AVhat for? A.—claims 'against the United States Government. Q.—Where is that statement? A.—I don't know. 40 SO 6o IO 20 40 60 0.— Haven't you seen it since? A.—I have not. tj.—Did you sign it? A.—I do not remember. Q.—Y'ou don ( remember whether you signed it? A.—I don't remember, no. Q.—Do you remember the amount of it? A.—I do not remember the exae-t amejunt. Q.—Wedl. about? A.—I could not say now. Q.—Can't you say about? A.—No, I do not remember now; I have not seen the claim since. Q.—What was it for? A.—A seizure and detention of the ■/eased, I presume. Q.—Seal skins? A.—Seal skins Q,—What did you put in the value of the ship at? A.— I don't remember now; I think it was $4000. Q,—Y'ou made that statement through Mr. Drake? A.— I think so. Q.—Let me refresh your memory by your own voucher; now look at the bill rendered by Mr. Drake, declaration and two copies.Whai was that that he charged you for? A.— (Examing bill) I presume this was for preparing the claims. Q.—And what was your claim for, don't you remember what you put the value of your ship in jit that time? A.—I woldn't swear to it; I have not seen the claim for so long. Q.—Did/yon put her in any less than you do now? A.—I don't think so; I do not remember. Q.—Did you put her in at all? A.—I wouldn't even swear to that. Q.—One was sent to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, was it not? A.—Yes, I understand it went to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Q.—Anel you don't know the amount of the claim which you made? A.—I wouldn't swear to it; no. Q.—And you don't know what you complained of? A.— Of course, for the seizure and detention of the vessel and cargo. Q.—Did you make a claim then for the future catch, wnat you might have caught in 1887 if you hadn't been taken? A.—I think there was an amount put in for the prospective profit for the following year; I have a faint recollection thai there was. Q.—Did you pay Warren for going down more than once? A.—Only once. q.—And ihat was in lss7? A.—I think 1887; I won't be positive, but I think it was in 1887. Q.—HowMiueh was he paid by you altogether? Y'ou paid this $150 odd, or $350, whatever it is, as your proportion, didn't you? A.—Yes. Q.—Among how many? A.—I dem't know, i do not know what others paid him. That was the receiDt he hanei- ed me for my proportion when I paid him. Q.—A question or two about provisions. I notice an item here of pilot bread; just tell us what that is? A.—A pilot bread is the bread we put on board for crews when they are out in boats. Q.—How does it come? A.—It comes in boxes. q.—About what size boxes? A.—O, various sizes. Q.—How much do they weigh? A.—I don't know. q.—50 pounds to-the box? A.—They are from 25 pounds perhaps, up; I don't know how much. Q.—And about how much are they a box or a pound? A. —I don't remember what (hey were in those years. Q.—You didn't pay a very large prie-o did you? A.—O, not a very large price. Q.— What is the largest box; how much poundage? A.— O, peu-haps 50 pounds: 1 am not sure. Q.—Well, abemt how large is (lie 50 pound box? A.—A box would be about the size of (his square (referring- to ton of witness box). Mi-rrnwM IO 20 30 40 50 60 129 Q.—Square? A.—No, not square; perhaps about 15 inches high. That would easily represent (he bottom board (indicating top of witness box). Q.—For the 50 pounds? A.—I don't know the weight, that is one of the largest boxes. Q.—Do you know how much a pound you paid for that bread? A.—I don't remember now. Q.—That you bought of Nesbit & Company? A.—I have forgotten for the time the amount. Q.—Did you buy it by the pound or by the box? A.—By the box. Q.—What does the- largest box cost? A.—I say I have forgotten now the price What they were in those days. Q.—Now, Mr. Munsie, this ship was built in 1861 was she? A.—I don't know when she was built. Q.—You don't know when she was registered as built? A. —No. To Mr. Peters:—There is no doubt about the register being correct, I suppose, (to witness). Well, the register being correct, she was built in 1861. What is her size. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— When was she built3 Mr. Dickinson? Mr. Dickinson:—In 1861, your Honour. Q.—She was a vessel of about 30 odd tons measurement. What was her-size in the clear—length? A.—I haven't the remotest idea. Q.—You haven't the remotest idea? A.—No, I have not taken the trouble to look at the size. Q.—(Reading from Register): "Length from forepart of stem under the bowsprit to the head of the stern post 45 feet." How much deck would that give you in the clear, do you know? A.—I do not know. Q.—And what was her width? A.—I have forgotten her breadth. Q.—(Reading) "Main breadth to outside plank 15 feet, depth in hold from tonnage deck to ceiling amidships, 5 feet." Now will you please tell the Commissioners how much of the deck room these four canoes took up? A.—I cannot do that. Q.—Were four canoes all she would carry? A.—I presume so, or I would have carried more, or at least would have put more on board of her. Q.—And these were carried on her deck were they? A.— I do not know, I presume so. Q.—Were you ever aboard of her? A.—Oh, ye*s. . Q.—After she was fitted out? A.—I don't remember whether I was or not after the canoes were put into her. Q.—And j'ou can't tell whether you ever saw /'the canoes or not on the ship, can you? A.—I wouldn't-swear even to that. Q.—You wouldn't swear that the canoes were e^ver on the boat would you? A.—NO. Q.—Anel all you know about the canoes being on the boat was from the report of (he captain? A.—The report of the —well, I elon't know who it was reported, I pastime they went on board; they had used them for se-aling. Q.—Now, did you ever see her cabin? A.—Yes. Q-—Was that above the deck? A.—T have just forgotten how her cabin went, whether it was what we call a flush deck or not. Q.—How large was the cabin ? A.—Oh. I don't remember. Q,— Was Hiere anv place forward for the men to sleep? A. —I think quite likely; I expect there was. Q.—You don't know? A.—I don't know. Q.—You bought the ship without looking at her, did you? A.—No. 9 1.30 Q.—Didn't you find out whether there were quarters for the men there? -V.—I presume she had a forecastle and cabin, the same as any other vessel. Q.—You can't tell how much room that took up? A.—I can't. Q.—Now, the space below decks, the forecastle, if there was one, took up some room, did it? A.—It would. Q.—And the cabin, if there was one. took up some room did it not? A.—Y'es. 10 Q.—Of the full length and width of the boat. There was no hold room on the side id: the cabin or the side of the forecastle, was there, in that narrow ship of 15 feet? A.—I don't know how her cabin was built. Q.—Did you keep any room clear in the hofd on the tonnage deck for the storage of seals, of skins? A.—When a vessel leaves here she is pretty well filled up with supplies, Sll|l> and they usually clear away a space to begin sealing, and use up supplies and provisions; they have salt bins. 20 Q.—They have salt bins for the storage of the seals? A.— Y'es. Q.—About what are the size of those salt bins? A.—It depends upon the size of the vessel. Q.—Don't you know what salt bins you had on the "Carolena"? A.—I don't remember; I had nothing to do with building her, or laying out the plans. Q.—Y'ou didn't know much about the "Carolena," did you, Mr. Munsie? A.—In a general way only. Q.—Did you ever see Bechtel on her? A.—I wouldn't 30 swear that he wasn't on her. Q.—You didn't know much about her, did you. Don't know the size of her cabin or whether ahe had a forecastle or not? A.—I don't know as there is any man living to-day who would swear to the size of her forecaatle or cabin, or even if she had any. 1 fancy she was like other ships. Q.—The best you can give us is your fancy? A.—She certainly had a cabin; I was in her cabin. Q.—You can't remember about its dimensions? A.—1 do not. 40 Q.—You cannot remember the dimensions of the salt bins? A.—No. Q.—Did they carry salt in the salt bins or keep them empty? A.—O. the'y carrie-el salt in them. Q.—And were the provisions such as you shipped and supplies carried on her tonnage deck or on the main deck? A.— It would be under the deck. Q.—Well, you shipped on the "Carolena" 40 boxes of pilot bread, didn't you? A.—I don't remember now. Q.—Y'ou can't remember these things without looking at So your vouchers, can you? A.—I wouldn't like to say. It says forty boxes of bread (referring to voucher). Q.—You put that on board of her, didn't you? A.—That went on board of her. Q.—Can you figure about the poundage in the boxes in your bill? A.—No, I wouldn't like to. Q.—Were they not the largest size, 40 boxes at 50 pounds each? A.—That would be about two dollars and a half a box. Q.—Were they or were they not? A.—(Computing) Just 60 two dollars and a half. Q.—Wits that right then? A.—That would be right. Q.—Fifty pounds in eae-h? A.—I am not giving (he weigh (. i( is the price per box. Q.—Well (he pilot bread was stored on the ship in the boxes, wasn't i(; you didn't lake' it out of the boxes and put it in bins? A.—No. Q.—It was stored in the boxes and shipped in boxes, wasn't it? A.—Yes. 131 20 30 Q.—And put on the tonnage deck? A.—I don't know what you term tonnage deck. Q.—There is only one below the main deck? A.—In the. hold we call it. Q— Well, in the hold? A.—Yes, under deck. Q.—You took eleven men, didn't you? A.—I believe there was eleven men. Q..—And she got, off on her sealing voyage some time in May? A.—About the 20th of May. I think. Q.—And the sealing season ends when? A.—No stated 10 time for the close of (lie season. Q.—Y'ou expect them back about when? A.—The latter part of October. Q.—Including the sailing time up and sailing time back? A.—Y'es. Q.—And how long does it take to sail down? A.—From 12 to 20 days. Q.—You also put on 5 barrels of beef according to your voucher from Beek & Co., corned beef, packed in the ordinary size large whiskey barrels? A.—200-pound barrels. Q.—And you put in two barrels of corned pork, diein't vou? A.—Y'es. Q.—About the same sized barrels? A.—About the same. Q.-—Anel you put in 76 what of beef, 76 pounds, I suppose, fresh be^ef? A.—I suppose so. Q.—That was from Beak & Co. You also put aboard 600 pounds of ham, didn't you? A.—Hams, yes. sir. Q.—And 682 pounds of bacon. Sou bought that of Bechtel? A.—That is right. Q.—That went aboard as uart of the supplies? A.—Part of the supplies. Q.—In addition to the 10 boxes of pilot bread, you got from another person 5 boxes of pilot bread, didn't you? A.—From who? Q.—From another person? A.—I don't remember now, I. havn't looked over the vouchers Q.—And then you thought you would add another barrel of corned beef, didn't you, whieih,' you got from Beek & Co. ? A.— I don't remember (examining voucheri. Yes, sir. Q.—And then you got senne 364 pounds of fresh meat, didn't you? A.—(Examining voucher). Yes. Q.—And 40 pounds of other meats, is that right? A.— (Examining). That's right. Q.—And then you had six barrels of salt, didn't yon? - Three barrels from the "Pathfinder"—I mean three tons? A. —Y'es. Q.—And what was that packed in? A.—Sacks. Q.—How much in a sack? .V.—I fancy 200 pound sacks, I am not sure; I am not positive. Q.—If they were 200 pound sacks it would lake ten 200 pound sacks to a ton? A.—Y'es. Q.—And if you took three tons it would take 30? A.— Thirty sacks. Q.—And if you took six tons it would take 60 sacks at 200 pound each? A.—Yes. Q.—Those were all put under deck, I suppose? A.—Y'es. Q.—Then you took 15 barrels of flour, didn't you, on the "Carolena"? A.—(Examining voucher). Yes. Q.—And you ordered 100 pounds more of corned meat? A. 6o —(Examining) No, that is corn meal. Q.—You took 100 pounds of cornmeal? A.—Evidently. Q.—And 100 pounds of oat'meal? A.—Yes. Q.—Then you took five mats of rice? How much in a mat? A.—About 50 pounds. Q.—And then how many beans did) you takei, three sacks of 180 pounds each? A.—Three sacks 180 pounds all told. Q.—Then you took two tubs of butter? A.—(Examining voucher) Yes. 40 5o io 20 30 40 50 • 132 Q.—And two kegs of syrup? A.—Three kegs of syrup. Q.—And two barrels of sugar? A.—Y'es. Q.—And how much barley? A.—25 pounds. Q.—And then you carried 1,100 gallons of water? A.I don't remember how many gallons of water. There were two tanks. Q.—And you had tanks full of water?A.—I don't remember the size. Q.—Below decks? A.—No, they .were on deck. Q.—How main pounds of shot did you have? A.—There were about 100 pounds of shot. Q.—And how much powder? A.—There was about 150 pounds of powder. Q.—Now, you had some very fine guns there, $50 apiece, I think A.—They were good guns. Q,—You had also 1000 pounds of potatoes, had you not? A.—I don't know how many potatoes. Q.—Examine- the voucher? A.—Y'es, 1000 pounds of po- tatoes. Q.—And you had on board all told 11 men to feed; is that right? A.—That is right. Q.—Now, did you have any either guns but Ihe shot guns at $50 apiece, and the four riftes at $30? A.—I believe there was one rifle. Q.—What kind of a rifle was it? A.—I never saw it; I see it invoiced. Q.—Now, whi'ii we speak of (he $50 guns, the'v were very fine guns, weren't then? A.-—No. $50 does not get a very good gun. q.—in it a breech-loader? A.—A breech-loader. Q.—Shoots a cartridge? A.—A cartridge. q.—And the four rilles were breeeh-loaders? A.—A Win- che'sier—I have forgotten the make. . Q.—They shoot a cartridge? A.—Shoot,a cartridge. Q.—Did you have any other guns on board? A.—I don't remember. Q.—Now, did yon or did you not? A.—I do not remember. Q.—Will you tell me what you were doing with 2000 military gun caps? A.—I believe they were what we call -the bomb gun; use it in foggy weather calling the boats. Q.—Where was that situated? A.—On th'ck. Q.—And they use ..a cap? A.—They use a cap, I believe of some kind. Q.—Now, did you have 2000 of those for that gun? A.—I don't remember myself; I couldn't say. The Captain usually orders those things. Q.—Was that gun on the boat when you bought her? A. —I think that was the gun from the "Mary Taylor"; I am not sure. They called it a rifle, but I think it was a sort of a bomb gun, a whale gun of some Hind; it is called a rifle, I believe. Q.—You think that was the one from the "Marv Taylor"? A.—I think that was the one from the "Mary Taylor." Q.—Was that portable'.' A.—Yes. Q.—Anel you needed 2000 caps for (hat? A.—I don't know how many they needed. 0.—Diel ii make a louder report than (he other guns? A. 60 tor that business. Q.—Now, you pul in this powder at 70 cents, a hundred r>ounds, $70? A.—That is what Mr. Ward charged us for it, 70 cents a pounel, less 5 per cent. Q.—Do you know anything about the price of powder, ex- ((■])( in thai bill? A.—This was English powder. Q.—Worth more than other powder? A.—It was. Mr. Ward is here and can testify to that bill? It was English powder come in cakes. 10 20 30 4o 60 133 Q.—And you paid 70 cents a pound for it? A.—Less 5 per cent. Q.—Now,in addition to this provision that you had aboard from (he sailing time in May, through June, July, August, September and October, you thought they might run short so you gave the Captain $500 more in money, to buy further provisions? A.—Ne>, I wouldn't say that. It was customary to give them some money in case of distress. They might be stranded, shipwrecked. We always provided them with some mone'v. Q.—But you did give them $500 in case he should run short of anything, or be in distress? A.—Y'es. Q.—And then gave him an advance on his wages of abou $300 more? A.—He had been from March in my -employ, and he had earned a portion of this pay. Q.—But you gave it to him? A.—I certainly paid him. Q.—And he went off with that in addition to the $500? A.—The $500 was not charged to him. Q.—But he had that in addition to the $500? A.—Y'es. Q.—Did Indiau Jimmy send you a bill? A.—No. I made that bill out myself when I paid him. Q.—He came here to get his pay? A.—Jimmy came into the store. He came up on the vessel. Q.—I show you Claim No. 1, vouchers 1 to 50 inclusive, exhibit 10 (voucher 15), in whose handwriting is that? A.—(Examining) The bill is made by Carne & Munsie. Q.—Are the words "Account of schooner 'Carolena'" put in? A.—No. That is in my own handwriting. Q.—When did you put that in? A —I think when it was rendered. Q.—And is all the handwriting like that, on any of these bills, your own? A.--I wouldn't say so Q.—As originally rendered ii was rendered to Carne & Munsie was it. and you aeldeel. "Account of schooner 'Carolena' "? A.—I did. Q.—Now, Mr. Munsie, I think you have stated that the "Pathfinder" or the "'"arolena" might have goods charged to them, or rather for them, and then they would divide? A.—That has been the case in some instances. Q.—The goods would be exchanged and transferred to the other ship? A.—Yres. Q.—How frequently is that the case? A.—Not very fre- cjuently. Q.—Did it occur as to the season of 1886? A.—So far as guns was concerned, shot and salt. Q.—-Had you ne> book like this with reference to the schooner "Pathfinder" like this marked "Carolena"? A.—No I have' not. Q.—You have no book, except in the "Carolena" case, like this? A.—No. Q.—Have you any memorandum taken like this of the "Pathfinder," except what is in that little book there? A.— Except what is in that little book there. Q.—The "Pathfinder" was owned bv Carne & Munsie? A.—Y'es. Q.—Didn't Carne & Munsie keep a book account of the "Pathfinder"? A.—Carne & Munsie was-a separate and distinct business. Q.—But Carne & .Munsie owned the "Pathfinder," did they not? A.—Yes. Not Carne & Munsie as a firm. Q.—Then you kept no account of the "Pathfinder"? A.— Not in Carne & Munsie's books. Q.—And you kept no account of the supplies furnished the "Pathfinder"? A.—Except the' vouchers. Q.—Except the vouclfers that had been covered just as vou did these? A.-Yes. Q.—But you had no minute that you put down when a bil '34 was rendered in the "Pathfinder" case? A.—I don't remem ber Q.—Have you looked for such a book as this? A.—I have not 10 3° 40 60 q _Well, now, you hadn't kept any books for yourself In the sealing business prior to this, had you? A—No. q And you stated in your examination that you thought you would begin to keep some accounts for yourself in '86? \.—-86, yes. ,., q.—Who paid the bills of the "Pathfinder"? A.—I did. q _Out of your separate fund or out of Carne & Munsie s? V—iNearlv always out of the schooners funds, not out of Carne & Munsie's. Sometimes we may have paid temporarily out of Carne & Munsie's, but it would be paid back. 'q Now, vou stated in vour examination yesterday tha- when the "Pathfider" gave" the "Carolena" anything, you charged it back to the "Carolena"? A.—Well, I don't mean to say that we- would enter it in all our accounts, but we deduct so much from her for that account, as the vouchers would show. BE ,- . - .„ q._Now, where you had bills rendered, Mr. Munsie to Carne & Munsie, or to Munsie, without the charge to the Carolena" on it, or the name of the "Carolena" being mentioned, how do you state from the appearance of the bills "whether the supplies went to the "Pathfinder" or the "Carolena ! A. —I ordered them myself, at the time I knew what they were ordered for. ., , Q— But you made no minute at the time? A.—I would ao it when the invoice came in, if I saw they were charged. Q.—I speak of the bills that came in—the entries that you made when the bills came in. You made no entries before, and you would make a minute as to what bill there came in, but how would you know whether the goods were delivered to the "Carolena" or the "Pathfinder"? A.—I generally superintend that myself. q And yet you sav that you cannot remember that you were ever on the "Carolena"' to see her after she was supplied? A.—I wouldn't say I never was on her., | . q Y'ou said, did you not, that you cannot remember being on iier? A.— I wouldn't say that. I did not intend it in that way. Q.—Did you ever go aboard of her and see whether supplies had been delivered? A.—Yes. q—Where did you find these 40 boxes of pilot bread stored. A.—I don't know as I found any place particular. Q._Where did you find 15 barrels of flour? A.—It was down in the hold. q. Not in the way of argument, but did you see tnem on the ship? A.—I wouldn't swear to each item particular, but in general the goods went on board. q. Did you see the'in go on board? A.—Part of them. q _Now did you see a barrel of the flour of the 15 barrels put on the "Carolena"? A.—Yes. Q.—Whereabouts did you see it? A.—I don't remember. q._You remember you saw it? A.—I remember the goods went there. q.—You remember seeing them on the 'Carolena .' A.— Yes.. I remember they pui them on board, but just the particular place they were stored I couldn't say. Q— Did you see the sixty sacks of salt, 200 pounds each? A.—I did not see it stored away. q. Did you see the corned beef and the corned pork? A. —It was delivered, and I saw it on the wharf, to be put on board. . q. Aside from the large items as to whiem. I have asked you, there is a very large amount of supplies as to which I have not asked you? A.—Y'ou see the vessel left in February to go to the coast for an Indian crew. They consumed a good deal of stuff on that voyage. 20 3° Q.—But havn't you made a claim against us for it all in the $10,000? A.—Everything from February to March. Q.—And you had a coasting license from February to June? A.—When the vessels go out they must always take a coasting license. Q.—You do a coasting business from February to June? A.—The Captain would. Q.—And the vessel didn't go up to Behring sea at all, did she until she came back to refit in May? A.—She came 10 back in May. Q.—And included in here are all the February and March supplies, before she sailed on the coasting trip? A.— .VII included there. Q.—Did the "Carolena" do any trading with the Indians on the way up? A.—She might have done a little, I wouldn't say whether she did or not. Q.—What did she have on board to trade with Indians? A.—She really did not have anything except the supplies. Q.—Were they put on board of her to trade? -V.—No, they were not. Q.—What were they put on board of her for? A.—To go down and procure the crew of Indians, come back here to fit out for Behring Sea, supplies enough, provisions for the crew and the Indians. Q.—Y'ou don't know what trading they did? A.—I do not. Q.—Never was reported to you? A.—I don't remember. Q.—Any sealing done on that trip? A.—I believe she bought from the Indians. Q.—And brought them to you? A.—Y'es. Q.—How many? A.—1 don't remember, a few that was brought up some seal skins. Q.—What is your estimate for the catch for the year if shfe had not been interefered with? A.—Oh, about 2,000, 22 or 3 hundred. Q.—Which would sell at $7 apiece? A.—Yes. Q.—One season's fishing would pay for that entire equipment, pay for your ship and leave you a profit of about $3,- 000, wouldn't it? Pay your $10,000, all your men's wages, pay-for the value of the ship, at $4,000; and leave you still $3,000 to the good? A.—It will pay very handsomely, yes. Q.—And you say that is what the "Carolena" would have done in your opinion, approximately? A.—Approximately. Q.—How much did she take down on the coast? A.—Just what you see in the February bills. Q.—The seals that she took? A.—Oh, I don't know that she went out sealing that trip at all. Q.—Until she got in Behring sea? A.—Until she went to Behring sea? Q.—I understood you this morning that she didn't seal any until she got to Behring Sea? A.—I mean on the- voyage from the time she leaves Victoria, until she got to Behring , sea, from the time she left here in May until she reached Behring sea, she done no sealing, but made a straight voyage from February to May, I don't remember whether she went out or not on the coast. She did bring up a few seals, but how many I have forgotten. Her object in going down was mainly to secure hunters for the Behring sea trip. Q.—She couldn't get them on her way to Behring Sea? A. go —We didn't choose to take the chances, take the risk of going down and making a failure, so that she went down and come' back, and I had arranged with while' hunters if he could not secure a crew of Indians. Q.—Now, Mr. Munsie, she had caught up to the time she was seized on the 1st of August, 687, and you expected to catch the balance, 2300 or 2800, did you, there?A.—O, 2300 would be the average; of course this is on the approximate as you understand. She might not have got that many, she might have got more. 4o 50 IO 20 30 40 5° 60 Q.—But the "Pathfinder" had made her catch before the 2nd of August, hadn't she? A.—Before the 4th of August. Q.—Had finished anel left Hie sea? A.—She.did not finish. She left on account of the seizures; the voyage was not ended; but on account of the seizures she was intimidated and left the sea to awd seizure. Q.—She wasn't warned, I think? A.—She wasn't warned. I might here say thai 1 did put in a claim for her, but it was thrown out by the British Government. Q.—As a part of the ship which you buy, don't you usually buy her tackle? A.—We' buy her hull, spars, sails, anchors, chains, running rigging. Q.—And you don't estimate in the value of the ship, when you estimate her at $4,000, the spars put upon her in the spring? You call (hat outfitting, do you ? A.—Those are the necessary expenditures that we must go through each and every year. Q.—Go through on any ship? A.—On any ship. Q.—And do you estimate her higher afte'r they are done, and lower before they are done? A.—I wouldn't say that. Q.—Do ships deteriorate in value from year to year? A.—They do. Q.—Will it cost over $100 a ton to build the "Carolena" as she is? A.—Probably there are expert ship carpenters who can give better testimony on that than I can; I am not a ship carpenter. Q.—Yrou have sworn to values, I am trying to see what you base it on? A.—Approximate values. What I consider the vessel worth to me. I do not care to sell her at that price, to build anew. Q.—Couldn't you build a ship, of all new timbers, at $100 a. ton, registered measurement? A.—In the fall of 1886, early in the year 1886,1 wanted to put another vessel into the business. I made application to the ship carpenter for a figure on a 75 ton vessel. He told me that he would furnish me with a new vessel, including everything but the sealing outfit, for $10,000. 0>—Whether in your valuation of the "Carolena" you have not taken into consideration anything for wear and tear? A.—The vessel just before I bought her, it appears, had been thoroughly overhauled—new rigging, new spars and new sails, in 1884, and a great deal of new work done to her hold. That was before she came into my possession. Q.—But you put in about 64, days for repairing the wlible three sails, didn't you, in May, 1886? A.—Won't you kindly let me see (Witness examines bill). That is a bill rendered by Mr. Sears for repairs to sails. .V ship will go out from here with a brand new suit of sails, and she may immediately, before she is away from Victoria 48 hours, carry them away. Q.—Calling your attention again to the receipts attached to the mortgage, will you please look at the receipts, especially the handwriting. I will refer j'ou to a receipt signed James Ogilvie, 0% May 19, 1886, state whether they are in the same handwriting as the receipts for the mortgage, voucher No. 10? A.—I wouldn't swe\tr that it was or wasn't. Q.—Now have you noticed the backs put on these vouchers, ihev are like that all through, do you know why you got that paper? A.—It was not put on by myself. Q.—Do you know where il came from? A.—I do not. Q.—Do you know where voucher No. 38 of this exhibit 10 came from? A.—I do not, no. 0 —That is Mr. Bechtel's bill isn't it? A.—Yes Q.—Do you see it on the same paper as is on the backs of all the vouchers? A.—I don't say it is the same paper. Q.—Is that the handwriting of Bechtel, do you know? A. —I elo not know, I couldn't say. Q.—Did you ever correspond with him? A.—Never. IO • 20 30 40 60 137 q.—Ever see him write? A.—I wouldn't say that I had not. Q.—Who got him to give that voucher, covering the boarding of the crew, and the 600 pounds of hams, and the 682 pounds of bacon? A.—I presume I did myself. He wuld certainly present his bill. Q.—Was it presented in 1886? A.—To the best of my knowledge- it was. > Q.—And you have got it here, I suppose, see if you can find it on your memorandum, see if you have got any bill from Bechtel on your voucher? A.—(Examining). Y'es, sir. (.}.—Now let's see it? A.—Colonial Hotel. Q.—234.75. That was written there in 1886, was it? A.— Y'es, sir. Q.—Right in there on that first page—on the second page— that was written there in 1886, was it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the entries below it, written in 1886? A.—Y^es. Re-examination by Mr. Peters. Q.—Mr. Munsie, you have been asked questions with regard to the vouchers you put in, and particularly you have been asked as to the backing of these vouchers, as a matter of fact, who made up these books? A.—My bookeeper.- Q.—He simply put a backing to each voucher, and that was done by your bookkeeper recently? A.—Y'es. Q.—For the purposes of this suit? A.—Yes. Q.—And there is no doubt this is simply a separate piece of paper put on the back for the sake of convenience, and it was done by your bookkeeper recently? A.—I presume so. Q.—And that is the case with regard to them, all? A.— That is the case with regard to them all; I had nothing to do with putting them on. The bookkeeper did it for convenience. Q.—And with regard to the receipt for $500 on this voucher number 30, that is also made up by your bookkeeper? A. —Yes. Q-—And in his own handwriting? .V.—Yes. Q.—And made up recently? A.—Quite recently. Q.—The real voucher in connection with that was the receipt? A.—Yes, and there is more of a statement there. Q.—That is to say the account which says, "Schooner Caror • lena in account with William Munsie, to cash put on board, $500, and one boat $100," that is simply a statement made up by your clerk? A.—That is it. Q.—The real voucher being the receipt of Captain Ogilvie, which is original? A.—Yes. Q.—Y'ou were asked by Mr. Dickinson whether you kept any book relating to the "Pathfinder" after she was bought, similar to this little memorandum book, and you said vou had not? A.—Yes. Q.—As a matter of fact there were other parties interest-, ed in "Pathfinder" besides yourself? A.—Yes. Q.—You were asked by Mr. Dickinson with regard to certain quantities of stuff that are mentioned in these vouchers that were put on board this ship, flour and biscuits, and all that sort of thing, and you stated that some of these articles were put in in February and some in May? A.—Y'es. Q.—Will that distinction appear by reference to the vouchers themselves? A.—Yes. Q.—So that any person by going through the vouchers can see how much was supplied in last February and how much in Mav? A.—Yes. Q.—You were asked with regard to Captain Ogilvie, and the statement, as I understand, which you made was, that you had advanced Captain OginBe on account of his wages, something like $300, and you had also given him an advance of something like $500 for ship's account, the answer you ,1 ricti : IO 20 30 40 5° 60 were understood tO' give was, that the captain went off with the $300. Do you mean to' say that Captain Ogilvie took any part of the advances he had for wages away with him? A.— No, I do not mean to say so. Q.—But he got the $300 or something like that? A.—From time to time he got advances that amounted to something like $300. Q.—Y'ou do not wish it to be understood that he took that away with him? A.—No, I do not wish it to be understood that he took that away with him; from time to time he received amounts that amounted to that. Q.—You were asked when you last saw this $667 mortgage, and you said yoi. did not know. Then you were asked if you did not keep the mortgage how did you come to keep all these vouchers. I want you to explain to the court how it was that you succeeded in keeping the vouchers for small amounts, and you did not keep the mortgage which was for a large amount. A.—The mortgage being cancelled I perhaps did not attach very much importance to it. Q.—How did you eejine to keep the other vouchers? A.— The vouchers as they came in were put on a little spring clasp and most of them if not all happened to be together. When I found the vessel was seizeel I took a little extra care in keeping them, after the claim was made they were put away, and some of them got mislaid or never returned from Ottawa, I don't know which. Q.—-As a matter of fact, whether it was by accident or design you put these vouchers on a little file, and when the trouble came they were there ?!5iA-—Y'es. Q.—Have you made a search to the best of j'our ability to find whether that mortgage was in existence or where it is? A.—I have looked. Q.—And you simply say you have not found it. A.—I have not found it. Q.— You were asked by Mr. Dickinson whether any part of the cash or notes that were paid for the vessel "Carolena" in the first instane:e were paid by Carne & Munsie or through them. Have you had time to ascertain that? A.—I have not had time, but I can ascertain that afterwards. 1 think I may say positively that they were not, it was my own business. Q_Will you look and see? A.—I will. Q.—Now with regard to your not finding that mortgage for $667, as a matter of fact the mortgage, I presume was record ed, and also I suppose, the discharge of it was recorded? A.— It must have been, but I have not taken the trouble to go to the custom house to look. The record will show. Q.—A reference to the record shows that it is entered? A.—I presume it would be. Q.—You were asked whether this vessel or any vessel as a matter of fact would depreciate from year to year, and you answered of course they would? A.—Naturally. Q.—As a matter of fact so far as the "Carolena" is concerned, did you keep her in good order from year to year since you have bought her? A.—Yes, I would take what care was necessary to keep her up. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What was she built of? Witness:—I believe of Oregon pine, or fir as we call it here. Q.—Where was she built? A.—I don't know, I have heard she was built in the State of Washington, I did not take the trouble to look up the record myself,but I unelerstood she was built there, brought here and the duty paid on her and put under the British flag. Examination bv Mr. Peters continued. IO 20 30 40 50 60 A.—Y'es, for them were A.— 139 Q.—You stated in reply to Mr. Dickinson that you put in a claim in 1886, and there was some question as to whether you claimed the value of the vessel at that time or. not that time did you expect you were going to lose A.—I did not, I. felt fully confident it was such an absurd seizure that the British Government would make a peremptory demand for the release of the vessel, and that was one reason why I left the insurance policy on her, and cannot even yet find when it was cancelled. Q.—You have been asked also with regard amount of caps youThad on board the ship for the boom gun, which is probably the musket mentioned in the inventory. As a matter of fact is the Behring Sea very foggy? A.—I am told so, but I have never been there. Q.—This gun is used for a sigual gun? signalling in the boats. Q.—And you supply them with the necessary ammunition for that purpose? A.—Yes. Q.—Is there anything unreasonable in having 2,000 primers which would be about two small boxes of caps, for that purpose? A.—It is not an exorbitant quantity at all. Q.—Y'ou have made a general statement that all the entries below a certain entry, with the exception of one also entered in 1886, and you stated that was correc That was correct. Q.—They were entered when they were paid? A.—Yes. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson. Q.—Y'ou sav, Mr. Munsie, that you refused Clark's bill at'Sitka? A.—Y'es, at the time. Q.—Were there reasons? A.—I considered it excessive. I did not want the case to go into the courts of the United States, as I preferred to let our Government handle it. Q.—And you finally paid it because he seized the skins? A.—There was a man came to see me afterwards, who represented himself as being the father-in-law of Mr. Clark. Q.—Just answer my question and afterwards explain. Did you afterwards pay the bill to release your skins? A.—Y'es. Q:—You did not change your mind as to the value of the services? A.—I did not. Q.—You still thought the bill was exorbitant? orbitant. Q.—The contract with Mr. Belyea was not in think ? A.—No, not in writing. Q.—It was made up at the time, though? A.—It at the time he undertook to look after the case. Q.—You agreed to pay him $750? A.—Yes, that was tne understanding. Q.—You agreed to pay him? A.—Yes, I agreed to pay him $750. Q.—And that agreement stands? A.—Yes, that agreement stands. Q.—Y'ou are bound to pay him $750? A.—If I do not get the claim I might not pay him; I might object to it. Q-—But you agreed to pay him $750 at all events for his services? A.—There might have been a condition. Q.—Was there? We don't want any statement as to what might be, but what is? A.—I won't state positively whether I agreed to pay him positively whether the claims were paid or were not paid, but I rather think there was an understanding that if they were not paid I would not have to pay him quite as much. Q.—Did you name any amount that you should pay him at all events? A.—I do not remember that there was.' .- Q.—But you were to pay him $750 if you succeeded? A.— Yes. (Examination of Mr. Munsie closed.) A.—Ex- writing, I was made IO 20 30 140 Mr. Peters:—I wish to make the statement to the Commission that with regard to that record of the title of this ship, although I have for the sake of convenience given it to my learned friend, and also to the Oeimhvissioners, I wish to be understood as stating that I do not put it in evidence. We' rely on the document which I formerly tendered in evidence, and I simply tendered that as a matter of convenience. Mr. Dit;kinson:—I understood it was put in to show the British registry. Mr. Peters:—I put in to show the British registry the document which the Revenue Culler "Corwin" took from our vessel, and at that I stopped. I pul in others for a ce'rtain purpose in order to explain certain apparent inconsistencies in these bills of sale- which have been produced here. The Commissioner on the part of the I'nited States:—You put in the license? Mr. Peters:—I refer now to the book which I have handed in. The Commissioner on the part of the United Slates:—I asked for the registry and you passed that book up as a matter of convenience. • Mr. Peters:—1 wanted to be understood as that. The Ceimmissioner on the part of the United States:—Is not that an exact duplicate? Mr. Peters:—No, because the registry found on the ship is as a matter of fact of a later date than that. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I wanted the registry found on the ship. 11 I' IM 40 60 John Graham Cox was called as a witness on the part of Her Majesty, and was duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Beique. Q.—Mr. Cox, 1 believe you are a member of the firm of E. P>. Marvin & Company? A.—I am. Q.—In what business is that firm? A.—-Ship chanellers. Q.—Are they interested in the sealing business? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—For how many years? A.—Since 1887. Q.—1887 inclusive? A.—Inclusive. Q.—I believe your firm owns several sealing vessels? A.— Six altogether. Q.—Are you aware as to the value and cost of boats that are used as sealing vessels, and as to what they- were worth especially in 1886 or 1887? A.—In 1888 thev were worth $120. The Commissioner on the part of the I'nited States:—Have you any knowledge of their value in 1886? Witness:—No, sir. Examination by Mr, Beique continued. Q— What did that include? A.—That included just the boat. Q.—How mue:h was paid for the oars and for the paddles? A.—Well, the oars cost about twelve and a half cemts per foot. Q.—You have no knowledge as to these values in 1886 or in 1,887? A.—No, I never purchased any in these years. 10 zo 30 40 SO 141 Q.—Can you give us the cost of the outfit in guns and boats for each e>f your sealing vessels? A.—I think so, sir. The actual cost of guns laid down here in Victoria was about $64.75. Q.—What kind of guns were those? A.—That was a Parker gun. Q.—In what year was that? A.—That would be in 1889 and up to 1803. Q.—Was there any difference in the price of the same gun in 1886 or 1887"' A.—The price would range acording to the grade of the gnu. Thai is what we term an $80 grade gun. Q.—That same gun in 1886 or 1S87 would be worth about the same thing? A.—I suppose it would be worth about the same, I did not purchase any in these years. Q.—I believe you bought the schooner "Vera?" Aj—Yes, sir, we bought the "Vera" on January the 13th, 1893. Q.— What M7as her tonnage? A.—60 tons. Q.—What did she cost? Mr. Dickinson:—I would make a pretty serious obje'ttion to this evidence in a court of nisi prus. W~hat has the cost of a vessel seven years after (he date we are talking about to do with this case? Mr. Beique:—I think we will be able to show that the cost of these vessels rather decreased than inereased in 1893 as compared with 1886. ■ The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— vVbat class of witness will you prove that by—those who know the value in 1886? Mr. Beique:—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Why do not you call them at the outset instead of calling witnesses to prove the price in 1893, and then calling witnesses to show that in 1886 the price was higher? Mr. Beique:—The reason we called this witness was because we expected that the last witness would have occupied all the forenoon, and this.is the only witness we have present. (To the witness.) Q.—Will you say what the "Vera" cost you altogether? A.—She was about five years old when we bought her and she cost us $7,442. Q.—Was she coppered when you bought her? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you copper her? A.—We coppered her the year following. Q.—And it cost how much? A.—About $750. Q.—When did you buy the "Annie E. Paint"? A.—We bough 1 that vessel in two or three years; we only purchased her, just a piece at a time. 0-—How much did you pay for her? A.—She cost us at the rate of $9,400, and we did not import her ourselves. Q-—Was she new? A.—She was about eight years of age 60 Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—82 tons Xfc. 11 ikii >uin xiv I I \JXH±CipL^ 1 .TTl..-—Oi/ |(l|l>. Q-—How long are these schooners expected to last if they ;tre kept in good order? A.—They would last a great many years, but I would hardly like to say how long. Q.—How old is the oldest one that you know now? A. I think the oldest is the "Favourite," and she is thirty odd years of age. Q.—In what condition is she? A.—She is in very good condition now. Q.—Is she considered a good vessel? A.—Yes sir. Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the 1 egislative Assembly, At Victoria, December, 4, 1896. At 10.30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. Mr. Peters:—Yesterday during the examination of Mr. Munsie questions were put to him with regard to ^ declaration made by him in the year 1886 before Mr. Drake. That declaration at the time I did not have in my hands, the document in which it is contained being in the hands of the printer. I would like to give the Court the reference where that document can be found. It will be found in Volume 5 of the American reprint of the proceedings at Paris, pages 59 and 61. Mr. Dickinson:—Is that the statement made to the Commissioner of Marine and Fisheries? Mr. Peters:—That is the declaration made before Mr. Drake and put into the case. With the permission of the Court I will read that document now. My learned friend gave a notice to produce the original, but as a matter of fact we have not got the original. Mr. Dickinson:—Of course I know of this copy, but I did not know that this was the copy referred to in the corrected bill, as there is no indication there that it was filed with the Oenmuissioner of Marine and Fisheries as that bill states. Mr. Peters:—That is the way it got into the case. It was sent, as a matter of fact—I am referring to the same document, Volume 5—to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries some time about its date, and afterwards transmitteel to England. And in order that the Oomm'ssioners may have the matter before them I propose to read that document. The Commissioner on the part of the United States.—I presume it is not necessary for the stenographer to take elovn anything more than a reference to it? Mr. Peters:—Not unless my learned friend wants it in the record. Declaration read. Mr. Peters:—That was the declaration I understand to be referred to in the cross-examination. That declaration was taken on the 20th October, 1886, before M. T. W. Drake, irher was a question put to Mr. Munsie yesterday upon which he wishes, with the consent of the Commissioners, to make an explanation. That is with regard to the question that was put to him as to whether all those entries in this little book he produces had actually been made in the year 1886— certain entries in that book. He wishes to make an explanation with regard to one of those entries only, and which did not strike him at the time, and that is with regard to an entry, J. D. Warren, 152. which appears at the bottom of the second page in I hat book. Mr. Munsie thinks it fair that he should explain to the Commissioners how that statement is to 20 30 40 SO 60 143 made, and with the consent of the Commissioners I will recall him on that point. Mr. Munsie, recalled by Mr. Peters:— Q.—Will you, then, take this memorandum book and give to the Commissioners any explanation you desire to make? Perhaps I should show to the Commissioners where that entry occurs (passing up memorandum book). A.—When Mr. Dickinson passed the book to me yesterday and asked me if all those entries after a certain one were made in 1886,1 then hurriedly looked down them, and I did not catch the name of Captain Warren, presuming that it was on the last page, but after I got the book from Mr. Peters I saw Mr. Warren's name was on the second page, and I would like to omit that name. That was not in 1886, because Captain Warren did not go to Ottawa until 1887, and I am not sure when it was paid, I think perhaps not until 1888—1887 or 1888. Q.—How does it come to be entered then on the bottom of that page? A.—It appears that there was a blank line there, and in making the entry I turned it over and seeing that blank line, I see it was the last page, and I just put it there. Q.—Do you remember the fact of actually making that entry at all? A.—No, I don't remember just the actual facts of it Q.—Mr. Munsie w:as interrogated yesterday by my friend .Mr Dickinson as to whether he had used certain moneys of the firm of Carne & Munsie in purchasing this schooner, and he was asked to find out whether there were any books of that firm which showed any payment of that description. Since yesterday's adjournment he has obtained a bank book from that firm and is able to make a positive statement on that point if the Commissioners will allow him to do so. Have you that bank book here? A.—I have. Q.—Will you produce it? A.—(Producing bank book)— There was no cheque drawn. This is the first bank book, opened in March. Q.—What year? A.—1884. I have not drawn one single cheque during the two years and a half. It is up here to the end of 1886, and not one cheque drawn to my credit. I may say that I have other resources. Up to the end of 1886 I would say there are three cheques drawn to selves during that year, one for $200, one for $80, one for $140, and one for $39.75, making $459.75 drawn to joint account. It was joint account drawn to selves. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is that the only bank account your firm had? A.—The only bank account. Mr. Peters:—I should like to ask this witness—You state you had means outside of this? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And yesterday I understood you to say that you did noi keep a bank account. As a matter of fact, did you keep what you call a savings bank asSpunt? A.—I believe I had al iha( time an account in the savings bank. The thought occurred to me this morning that. I had, but I have not looked at it. It is some small savings that I put in there. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson. Q—What savings bank? A.—The Dominion Government Savings Bank. Q.—Here in Vict en ia? A.—Victoria. Q,—You don't know when you opened the account? A.— 1 do not. Q.—Did you have it in 1886? A.—I would not say. I pre- vnf**r*&- 10 20 40 50 60 '44 sume it was much earlier. 1 presume it was way back in 1878, or something like that. ti-—Do you cheque your money out of the Savings Bank? A-—No, I do not pay any money out in that way. Q.—How do you get the money out? A.—By cheque when I draw it out. Q.—And you have a bank book to show what you deposit? A.—I presume I have; I don't know. Q.—Do you keep the bank account yet? A.—No. Q.—When did you close it? A.—There may be a very small amount; sufficient to keep it open. I am not sure there is. Q.—How much did you ever keep there? A.—1 wouldn't answer that. Q.—Y'ou did not understand when I asked you if you kept a bank account anywhere that that covered savings bank? .V.—It did not occur to me that I had one. Q.—You had forgotten the fact that you had any. Do you remember whether at any time you had as much as $5,000 there? A.—I may. Q.—Would yem swear that, you had as much as $10,000? A.—I don't think I had as much as that. Q —Would j7ou swear that you had not as much as that? A.—I don't think the Government allow that much. Q.—Yon can't tell within some thousands how much you kept there? A.—1 don't know now; it is so long ago, I don't remember. Q.—As to this memorandum book, did you look at the voucher and find that it was dated in May, 1887, after being on the stand? A.—I did not. Q.—It was not told you, was it? A.—No, it was not. Q.—These entries I think you told me yesterday were entered when the voucher was presented? A.—About that time. Q.—And this might have been entered in 1886? A—It might. Q.—But at the time you made that entry J. D. Warren— you may have made it in 1888? A.—I might have. Q.—The entry was made over the leaf schooner "Mary Taylor." 23.56. That had been there some time since 1886, had it not—right on the next page? A.—I don't remember just how that entry came to be maele. Q.—The entry "schooner 'Mary Taylor,' 23.56," was it there or was it not when you. made the entry J D. Warren at the foot of the second page? A.—I fancy it is there. Q.—And the entry "Hall & Goepel" was there? A.—Yes. Q.—And the other entries on the third page are all there? A.—To the best of my knowledge. It. appears there is one blank remaining there; I fancy that that was the last page. Q.—Do you remember of fancying that? A.—I don't remember fancying that. Q—The item just above that, "Pathfinder" 45, was made in 1886? A.—I think so. Q—Did it ever occur to you, when you don't remember about it. that it might have been possible when you made the other entry in 1886, to have discovered that there was a blank at the foot of that page? A.—I might have noticed it. Mr. Dickinson:—That book is an exhibit in the case, I think. Q.—Mr. Bod well:—It is marked for identification. ■si IO 20 30 40 50 60 145 Andrew J. Bechtel, called and sworn. (Direct examination by Mr. Peters.) Q.—Where do you reside, Mr. Bechtel? A.—Victoria. ii.—How long have you resided in Y'ictoria? A.—About 23 years. Q.—I believe vou.are married and settled down here? A.— Yes. Q.—And have a family here? A.—Yes. Q.—And this has been your home for the last 23 years? A.—Yes. Q.—What business are you in now? A.—In the sealing business. Q.—How long have you been engaged in the sealing business—about how long? A.—I can't say exactly as to a month; over three years. Q.—About three years you mean ? A.—About three years —longer. Q.—What was your business before that? A.—Hotel business. Q.—You kept an hotel here? What was the name of the hotel? A.—I have kept different hotels. Q.—Y'ou were a hotelkeeper in Victoria for how many years? A.—For about 18 years. Q.—Prior to 1886 had you anything to do with the sealing business? A.—No, sir. Q.—Had you anything to do with shipping. A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you know anything about ships up to that (ime? A.—No, sir. Q.—Had you owned any ship before then? A.—No, sir. Q.—Had you any share or interest in any ships of any kind up to that time? A.—Not any. Q.—And, in fact, had you in 1886 any interest in any ship? A.—Not any. Q.—Or in 1887? A.—No, sir. Q.—Or in 1888, as a matter of fact? A.—No. sir. Q.—Or in 1889? A.—No, sir. Q.—And I believe I might also say 1890? A.—No, sir; not in 1S90. Q.—Now in the year 1885 you had a transaction with Mr Munsie? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—He borrowed some money from you? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Peters, what is your understanding of the matter, of rebuttal if you go into this matter now? Do you understand that you are closed on rebuttal? Mr. Peters:—I am now giving evidence as to what this vessel cost. I am not going into the matter of ownership; what this gentleman's nationality is. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Y'ou have asked him if he was interested in vessels during certain years. There seems to be a sort of intimation here that he was a beneficial owner of this vessel. I simply wanted to ask you what you understand the rules to be about rebuttal. Mr. Peters:—I certainly do not intend to go into any question upon which we will afterwards want to give rebuttal evidence. I only wish to explain this mortgage transaction. The papers on their face require some explanation—the fact that these papers all contain the same amount. I want simply to show that it is a bona fide transaction. The Commissioner e>n the part of the UnMed States:—If you open up the question here now are you not barred on rebuttal? 10 11 II Hi 10 20 30 146 Mr. Peters:—The question raised in the pleadings is one of American nationality that is all. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Don't you make out a prima facie case when you put in the British Register. Mr. Peters:—I am here on the question of value. Mr. Munsie brings in a statement, he says I bought that vessel for so much, the papers show she did not cost so much on the face of them. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—1 only meant to ask you1 the question what you understood about the matter of rebuttal. Mr. Peters:—I am not going into anything except this particular mater which to us appears to need some explanation. Mr. Munsie says that he bought that vessel at a valuation of $3,800. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Does this witness know anything about what she cost? Mr. Petepl:—He knows the exact transaction, and the money he himself advanced. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Does that enable him to show what she cost? Mr. Peters:—It corroborates Mr. Munsie, and shows that his statement is correct, that is all. To witness:—You had this transaction with Mr. Munsie? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you advance him some money? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What time did you make the first advance? A.—Time? Q.—In the year? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Let me ask you Mr. Peters, I am doing this on my own account without consulting my associate. What difference does it. make how much money he advanced unless he knows what the vessel cost, unless you intend to meet the entire-question raised by the pleadings of the United Sates now. I do neit think we ought to be compelled to go over this matter twice? Mr. Peters:—This witness on this point certainly would not be re-called. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—■ But you may claim to give it in rebutal, for aught he knows 50 Mr. I Munsie had the money to buy a shop or a farm. If he knows what this vessel cost, that is another thing. Mr. Peters:—I will content myself with putting only one question about it. There was a mortgage given for $667, as Your Honour remembers in February, 1885. I simply wanted to ask this witnesses a matter of fact whether that was the amount advanced, or whether it was a less sum than'that, simply for the purpose of corroborating Mr. Munsie's statement as to the nature of the transaction. They have already go ;u cross-examining Mr. Munsie tried to make it appear that the statement made by Mr. Munsie is an improbable one, that I he' papers show that his statement at all events is the subject of some doubt. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I have no furthe>r suggestions to make. 1 merely want on my own behalf to throw out this caution. To witness:—You took a mortgage from Mr. Munsie, as a 40 20 40 A.—Well, I think your place.' live of? A.— afterwards A.—Yes, A.—Yes, 147 matter of fact, in the month of February, 1885, and the amount of that mortgage was $667. Will you be kind enough to tell me what is the actual amount you then advanced? A.—$500. • Q.—No more? A.—No more. Q.—Now there is another matter I want to ask you about iMr. Bechtel,' I again wish to refer to the cross-examination by my learned friend. There is a matter I want explained here with regard to Mr. Ogilvie whose personal claim is now before this Court in this case. Did you know Captain Ogil- 10 vie? A—Yes, sir. Q.—How long had you known him? ever since I came to the country. Q.—Was he in the habit of boarding at Yes, «ir he always maele my place his home. Q. —Now Mr. Bechtel, where did this man Ogilvie Victoria? A.—Yes, sir, at Victoria. Q.—You had known him for a number of years? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Had he any relations here that you know Not that I know of. Q.—He went away, I believe, in 1886 and never returned? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did the mate Blake come from Victoria? sir. Q.—Claims were put in, I believe for Mr. Blake? sir. Q.—Who put the claim in for Mr. Ogilvie? A.—It was 3° through me that the claim was put in. Q.—For any one else but Ogilvie? A.—No, sir. Q.—I refer to page 61 of volume 5 (American reprint). The claim is put in in this way:—"Victoria, British Columbia. I James Ogilvie, master of the schooner "Carolena," claim as compensation for my arrest and imprisonment on board the United States steamship 'Corwin,' and in jail at Sitka, the sum of $5,000. Dated the 19th day of October, 1886. James Ogilvie, by his attorney, A J. Bechtel." As a matter of fact, Ogilvie was then dead, as it now appears? A.—Yes, Q.—Did you know anything about that then? A.—Yes, sir. Q — And you put this in, witnessed by Mr. Drake? A.— Y'es, sir. Q.—Did Ogilvie have any other friends here besides you? A.—There was no doubt he had a good many friends, nothing more than just acquaintances. Q.—As a matter of fact, did you put this claim in for yourself? A.—No, I did not. Q—Did you intend to get the benefit of it? A.—In this 50 way. There was a small amount he was indebted to me. Q.—He owed you a small amount for what? A.—It was for board. Q.—About how much? A.—Well, I would not be positive. Q.—Would it be over >$100? A.—I don't think it would, although it might be. Q.—And you put this claim in on account of your having known Ogilvie for such a time? A.—Yes, sir Q.—Did you, as a matter of fact, happen to see the ."Carolena" before she went out in 1886? A.—Yes, sir. 60 Q.—How was she loaded? A.--Pretty well loaded. Q.—Were you on board of her'. Q.—You say you knew the capt A.- -Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. \. Q.—And you were on board of her before she sailed? —Yes, sir Q.—As a matter of fact, you do not intend to give any statement of what was on'board of her? A.—No, I couldn't sav. io 20 148 Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson. Q.—Y'ou did not enter the sealing business until 1890? A.—I think it was in 1890 I bought a vessel in San Francisco. Q.—Y'ou had no interest in the sealing business before? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you enter the sealing business in 1890? and enter the ownership of sealing vessels? A.—I wouldn't be positive whether it was in 1890 or 1891, but I bought the City of San Diego in San Francisco; in 1890 or 1891. Q—Was it the same year you became a British subject? A.—No, sir. Q.—When did you become a British subject? A.—The 21st of April, 1S92, to the best of my knowledge. Q.—Did you have any sealing business—own any sealers prior to that time ? A.—Nothing but the City of San Diego. Q.—That was an American ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—With an American register? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, what was the $167 for? A —What $167? Q.—The difference between $500 and $667? A.—That was intended to cover the interest. Q.—For how long? A.—Well, there was no specified time. Q.—How did you get just $167? A.—Well, really, I would not be positive it was $167, I knew it was over $100. Q.—If it was $167. how did you get just that amount? A.—Well, I couldn't say. Q.—How much did you advance on the $1,000 mortgage? 30 A.—$500 more. Q.—Made $1,000 altogether? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And did you get the interest paid, the $167? A.—The interest on the $500 loan was paid. Q.—-Was it the difference between the $500 and the mortgage? Did yon get that amount of interest? A.—I couldn't, say. Q.—What was done with (he surplus between $500, the amount that you actually advanced, and the amount of the mortgage? A.—I couldn't say. Q.—Don't know whether you got it or not? A.—I know that there was a mortgage given for 600 and odd dollars, and that mortgage was cancelled, and then I gave Mr. Munsie $500 more, making $1,000, and he gave me a new mortgage for $1,000. O.—Do you know how many shares that was on? A.— The $1,000'? Q.—Yes. A.—That was—I couldn't be positive, but I believe 32 shares. Q'.—Just half the interest? A.—Yes, sir; 32 shares. Q.—And the whole title then stood in the name of Munsie? A.—I couldn't say as to that. Q.—You could not sasibut I suppose you knew at the time you took that mortgage on the boat where the title was? A.— The lilie for the vessel? Q.Yes. A.—1 did not. Q.—Do you mean to say that you took a mortgage on the boat without knowing where the title was? A.—Well, I was advised to take a mortgage for my money. Q.—And you did not know anything about the title yourself? A.—I never had anything to do with the vessels and 1 did not know anything about them. Q.—Then you did not know that Munsie held the title? A.—I knew by his te'l'ng me. Q.—At (he time you made up this claim for Ogilvie, was it made before Mr. Drake? A.—I believe it was. 40 5o 60 10 20 3° 4o 60 149 Q.—And whereabouts did you sign and make it? A.—If I am not mistaken it was in Mr. Drake's office. Q.— Was Mr. Munsie there? A.—No, sir. (4.—Do you know anything about Munsie making a claim which went with it? A.—No-, sir. Q.—How did you come to go to Mr. Drake's office? A.— Well, I was advised by others putting in claims. I had been talking with different ones that were putting in claims; other captains that were there at the time in Sitka. Q.—Now, on July 13th, 1886, you rendered a bill. Did you include in it what Ogilvie owed you (showing witness voucher 38, exhibit 10). You have seen that before, haven't you? A. —It is my handwriting. That doesn't include Ogilvie's bill. We never include captains with the crews. Q.—So that did not include Ogilvie's bill? A.—No, sir. Q.—Have you any books to show what Ogilvie owed you? A.—Well, no. Q.—Did not you keep any books? A.—There were books kept at the hotel at the time. It was a good many years ago. Q.—^Was this bill I now show you taken from your books? A.—I have Ogilvie's account. Q.—Did you have an account of this vessel I now show A.—1 wouldn't have. Ii might he on the hotel books 1 wouldn't say. Q.—How do you know that you had Ogilvie's bill at about the same day, and not these bills? Q.—I know it by the papers of administration. Q.—Were you made Administrator for Ogilvie? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In the Court here? A.—No, sir. Q.—How then are you made Administrator for Ogilvie? A.—It was through the Courts, I suppose, at Sitka, that is. I think the papers were sent there to be completed. The way they were made out I, of course, know nothing about it. Q.—Where are the papers that were sent you from Sitka? A.—I have them in my house. Q.—Will you let us see them? A.-1—I can bring litem down, yes, sir. Q.—Now you said that you were in the hotel business in 1886 and had beem for some years? A.—Yes, sir Q.—Did you keep a piggery? A.—I did at that time. Q.—Whereabouts was it? A.—About a mile and a half from (he Post Office. Q.—Was it yours? A.—It belonged to my brother and myself. Q.—Y'ou were in partnership were you? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—Ever in partnership with Carne & Munsie? A.—No. sir. Q.- Have an interest in that coacetn? A.—No, sir. Q.—In vour piggery vou bought and sold a good deal? A.—Yres. Q.—And in your hotel? A.—Considerable bacon and hams; we cured meat as well. Q.—Y'ou paid a good deal of money out in your piggery business? A.—Oh, well, more or less. Q.—And you kept your office while you carried on the business at the hotel. A.—At (he hotel, yes sir. Q.—Pretty careful about giving receipts were you? A.— Wedl, I suppose so. Q.—When you paid money you gave receipts did not vou? A.—1 took receipts, yes sir. Q.—And when you received money, you gave receipts? A. Gene'rally.— Q-—You kept blank receipts? A.—No, sir, I could not' say we did. Q.—Did not keep blank receipts? A.—No, sir. ISO p 10 30 40 SO 60 - Q.—Did you keep a litttle book—a stub—blank receipts showing from whom you received money when you give a receipt? A.—Not always. Q.—Did you keep any blank receipts? I did for rents. Q.—And were you pretty careful about numbering them so you could see where your blanks went? A.—Yes, sir, sometimes. Q.—And what rents did you receive in 1886? A.—I couldn't say. Q.—Did you have any stores or buildings from which you received rents? A.—I had some cottages. Q.—And rents payable monthly? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you keep a set of blanks for each house or cottage, or use blank receipts? A.—Well, there would be one blank; of course a book would cover all. Q.—You only kept one set of blanks at a time? A.—Just for house rents. Q.—Did you keep a set of blanks for anything else? A.— I might have had, ves. Q.—Did you? A.—Yes, I believe I had: Q.—What did you use those for? A.—That would be the receipts for anything outside of rents for cottages. Q.—Did you receive anything outside except for rents of e:ottages?—outside of your business? A.—Yes, I had money loaned—some money. Q.—More than one loan to Munsie? A.—Oh, yes, I had different lots. Q.—In 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you had one set of receipts for that? A.—Yes, that would be separate Q.—Then you did use blank receipts, elidn't you? A.— Some, not always. Q.—You had 0110 set of blank receipts for rents, and another set for money loaned? A.—Yes. Q.—Now, I don't care to ask you the names, but how many loans hael you out in 1886? A.—Well, I couldn't tell. Q.—Five? A.—Oh, I wouldn't be positive. Q- A.—I wouldn't be positive, it was so long ago Q.—Take it from 1886 down? A.—I would not be positive. Q.—You were loaning money then to others? A.—Yes. Q.—You could not tell whether you were loaning to ten or to five? A.—It might be four or five. Q.—And you keep one set of blank receipts . for money loaned and interest on it, I suppose? A.—Yes, for money loaned would be different from the rent receipts. Q —But you kept one for rent receipts and another for loan receipts? A.—Yres, sir. Q.—Payments of interest and sums paid back and so on? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I show you receipts attached to Exhibit No. 9. I want to see if they are in your handwSing? A.—(Examining) Yes, sir, thai is my handwriting. Q—I mean the body of the receipts; see if they are all in your handwriting? A.—(Examining) Yes, sir. Q.—I want you to look them through and see if they are in 3'our handwriting. (Witness examines receipts.) Q.—You can tell your handwriting pretty quickly cannot you? A.—It might be counterfeited. Yes, sir, they are all in my handwriting. Q.—Now, will you look at them again and see if they are all given at the times they bear date? A.—Every six months. Q—They were given e^ery six months? .A.—Yes, sir, it might varv a little. 10 20 3° 4o SO 60 M Q.—Are those original receipts, all of them? A.—I should think so. Q.—Were you ever called upon to give duplicates? A. A.—I believe Mr. Munsie at one time asked me to give a receipt, that he had lost one or two, mislaid them or something; I would not say what ones they were. Q.—You cannot distinguish them now? A.—No, I could not. Q.—Did you keep a stub to these receipts? A.—There was a stub, but where it is I couldn't say, it is so long now; it is almost ten years Q.—He came and asked you for those duplicate receipts, didn't he, since he began to make up his claims here? A. —He has never said anything to me about those. Q.—About giving duplicate receipts, when he had lost some? A.—Oh, this was a long while ago. He told me that he had lost one or two recepts. Q.—About when? A.—It must have been five years; at least four years ago. Q.—That would be in 1892 that he asked you for duplicate receipts because he had lost some? A.—I remember it is a long while ago. Q.—It was since he made his claim on the "Carolena" in this case? A.—I couldn't say. I don't know just what date he made his claim. Q.—Y'ou made one about the same time in 1888 for Ogilvie? A.—I am not positive what date I made Ogilvie's. November, 18S6, it was, if I remember—October; I have the papers at my house; I can tell. Q.—It was since that that he asked you for the duplicate receipts? A.—It was some time since that. Q.—Now did you have your stub-book then to refer to ? —I must have had it. Q.—And didn't you understand what he wanted duplicate receipts for? A.—Well, to replace; that is, one or two had been lost. I would not be positive whether it was one or two; I believe, (hough, it was two. Q.—He wanted them to make up his claims, didn't he? A.—Well, he didn't say. Q.—Now, have you taken a look for that stub-book? A.—- No, I have not. Q.—Will you? A.—I will, yes, sir. I think I can very likely find it. Q.—Was that a stub-book that was used up; all the receipts taken out? A.—I couldn't say; I am not positive. Q.—Did you get a new stub-book before one was used un£ A.—No, notfbf that kind; only for rents. I have now a number of rent receipt stubs that I have used of late years—the last year or two. Q.—These stubs on that other befok you kept for a time, suppose? A.—Well, yes, I must have had them for some time. I remember it was a pretty good sized book, 100 or 125 receipts. Q.—That is what those came out of? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now he asked you, you say, about four years ago, for duplicates? A.—I wouldn't be positive as to the time. I know it was a good many years ago that he spoke to me about it. Q.—But you had the same kind of receipts then, didn't you, that you had in 1886? A.—That must have been the same book. Q.—When you gave him duplicates did you take the receipts out of the old receipt book? A.—If I get the stub it will show. Q.—You did take them out of the same, didn't you? A.— Yes, I notice they are all off the same receipts. Q.—I suppose it is your custom, is it not, when you have 3° 40 5° 6o a stub-book and have dealings with a man, to number his receipts separately from the other stubs; that is, you number them, each individual man with whom you deal, you number the receipts he gives you? A.—No. The number of the cottage I generally put at the head. I notice they are all numbered even. q.—it is your custom to keep each man's receipts numbered by themselves, or did you number your receipts according to your stub books as you we-nt through? A.—It would be more likely. I wouldn't say to that, at any rate. So far as the receipts are concerned I generally do. Q.—Well, let us see that stub-book if you can find it? A. —I will look for it. (2.—And bring me, if you have no objection, one of the stub-books of your rent receipts? A.—Y'es, sir. Questions by the Commissioner on the part of the United States. Q.—Mr. Bechtel, why was that mortgage expressed to be without interest? A.—The mortgage for $1,000? (2.—Yes? A.—Well, Ihe rate of interest, Mr. Munsie thought was a little high, and he did not like to have his business exposed. Q.—Was there a note taken at the some time? A.—No, sir, I was advised to take a note afterwards. Q.—Was there a note taken for the loan? A.—No, sir. Q.—Was a note ever taken for the loan? A.—No, sir. Cross-examination resumed by Mr. Dickinson. Q.—Was there any note taken for the first loan? A.—No, sir. Q.—Not at all? A.—No, sir. Q.—You never took a note then from Munsie? A.—Not for the $1,000. Q.—On the first loan? A.—No sir. Q.—The $667 nor the $500? A.—No, sir. Q.—Never took a note? A.—No sir. Q.—And do you know any reason why you put $167 in a mortgage for $500 for interest and put no amount in the $1,000 mortgage interst? A.—Well, this was just a loan payable at any time. He said he would like to pay me back at most any time. Q.—The $500? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—In which $167 is put in for interest? A.—Yes, to cover interest, it was his own proposition. Q.—Now I will ask yon to look at voucher 48 Exhibit 10, .•and tell me in whose handwriting the bodjr of that receipt is? Is that yours? A.—texaminiug.) No, sir. Q.--'"William Munsie 152." Cannot you tell without reading it, in full, whose handwriting it is in? A.—Tt is not my handwriting. Q.—Did you keep any books at the piggery? A.—No, sir, nothing more than from day to dayv Q.—No regular books? A.—No, sir. Q.—Yrou furnished the "Caroleua" 600 pounds of ham and 682 pounds of bacon didn't you? A.—I wouldn't be positive as to the number of pounds Q.—Well you rendered this bill? A.—(examining.) Yes, sir, that is correct. Q.—When did von make out the bill? A.—Well, it is dated. Q.—That is the date, but when did yon make it out? A.— It was made out at that date. Q.—1886? A.—1886. Q.—Are you positive abou I it Mr. Bechtel ? A.—Oh, yes, it is niv handwriting. IO 20 30 40 SO 60 153 Q.—Outside of the date itself can you tell whether you made it out about the date of the bill? A.—I made it out then sure. Q.—Did you get the items from any books? A.—It- would be probably altogether where we kept an account of such transactions as that. Q.—Where is that? A.—The Lord only knows. Q.—Did you keep a little book with such transactions as this, containing dealings relative to your piggery so that you could tell what you paid out? A.—I wouldn't know where it was at this time. Q.—Now did you make that up within the last two months? A.—No, sir. Q.—You swear, do you, that you made it up in 1886? A.— Yes, it was made up the day it is dated. Q.—Did you deliver the hams and bacon? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On the ship? A.—I couldn't say that. Likely they were sent aboard. Q.—That is just what friend Munsie says; he didn't go aboard, and don't know. A.—I might have sent them on board from the hotel, or I might have sent them to Carne & Munsie's. Q.—Did they buy bacon and so on from you from your piggery? A.—Yes, for the vessel. Q.—Did they buy from you for their store? A.—I believe they did. Q.—Now can you tell whether this was delivered to the "Carolena" or delivered to Carne & Munsie? A.—-1 cannot. Q.—When you went on the ship did you go below? A.— No, I did not. Q.—Didn't go below? A.—I believe I did go in the cabin. Q.—Didn't go below on to the tonnage deck—below decks to see what they had aboard? A.—Not in the hold, where they kept their supplies. Q.—What did you go there for? To say goodbye to Captain Ogilvie? A.—Yes. Q.—Ever been on her before? A.—Oh, yes; I had been on her several times. Q.—Just went on to visit the captain? A.—Yes. to see the captain; that is all. Q.—You knew the ship pretty well above and below? A. —I knew! the ship was loaded; appeared to be very full when she left. Q.—Did you look down in the hold? A.—I could see the hatches off; could see that she was well loaded. John J. Robinson was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and was sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell. Q.—Yrour name is John J. Robinson ? A.—Yes. Q.—You live in Victoria? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And are a ship carpenter? A.—Shipwright and shipbuilder. Q.—How long have you been in Victoria? A.—Ever since about 1877. Q.—Have you been working at your trade during that time? A.—All the time. Q.—Did you know the "Carolena?" A.—I did. Q.—In the year 1884 did you have anvthing to do with the "Carolena?" A.—I did: Q.—What? A.—Lengthening her. Q.—How much did you lengthen her? A.—A few feet; about eight eet. Q.—Did that increase her capacity in any other way? A. —Well, lengthened her amidships. Q.—What effect did that have on the breadth of the vessel? A.—I suppose it would, make her twelve inches wider. i 154 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—When was this? A.—In 1884. Mr. Bodwell:—Is that your signature (showing witness paper) ? A.—That looks very like it. I should say it was. Q.—What is that document, Mr. Robinson? A.—That is a receipt for payment of carpenter work. Q.—What is the amount.you received for the work you did? A.—$900. 10 Q.—\Yhat is the date of that receipt? A.—April 14th, 1884. Q.—Was that about the time that you finished your work? A.—As near as I can remember The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Had not that better go into the case? Mr. Bodwell:—I don't think it is necessary. I simply show it to the witness to refresh his memory. 20 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You don't care for it, Mr. Dickinson? Mr. Dickinson:—No, your Honour. Q.—Do you know whether anything else was done to the "Carolena" at that time? A.—Well, I presume they gave her a new rigging and a new outfit I suppose; I can't swear to that. Q.—Can you swear as to any other work that was done ,0 besides the lengthening that you did? A.—I presume they had new rigging, there were new spars there. Q.—In what condition was the "Carolena" when this work was done? A.—Oh, pretty good. Q.—What kind of a schooner was she? A.—Oh, a nice handy little vessel. Q.—Of what woejd was she built? A.—pine, as far as I can find out. Q.—The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—How much was she lengthened? A.—A trifle over eight feet. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Was that before this register was taken? Mr. Bodwell-.—That was in 1884. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What is the date of that register? Mr. Bodwell:—The register is before that date. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— $o Don't she require a new register after being lengthened? 40 60 Mr. Bodwell:—As a matter of fact everything that was necessary to be elone by the owners for the purpose of obtaining a new register, was done. She was re-measured, and the certificates are in the collector's office now, but for some reason or other there does not appear to be a new certificate issued. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Cannot we have the benefit of the new survey here before we get through? Mr. Bodwell:—Yes, we can get those original documents, the measurement certificate, and the surveyor's certificate if the Commissioners would like to see them. They are in the collector's office now in Victoria. Q.—At whose request did you do this work? A.—The captain's. OK8R0 155 10 20 40 60 Q.—In the course of your business here have you acquired a knowledge of the value of vessels? A.—No, I could not say that I have, I have general ideas all round. Q.—Have you any opinion as to the value of the "Carolena" at that time? A.—I should think she was worth between $4,000 and $5,000. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—--The simple question is whether you have an opinion or not. Q.—Have you an opinion as to her value? A.—Yes. Q.—What is that opinion as to her value in 1884 and 1885? A.—Well, about $5,000. Q..—Have you an opinion as to the cost of building vessels per ton in Victoria at that time and prior to that time? A.—Oh, I suppose all the way from $150 up, builders' measurement. Q.—Have you any idea as to the number of men that could be carried on a cruise on this ship the "Carolena?" A.—Do you mean hunters? Q.—Y'es, for a sealing voyage? A.—Oh, I should say they could take 12 or 14. Q.—Do you know anything about the way in which those sealing schooners are usually loaded when they start out for a a sealing voyage? A.—Well, no; they generally go out pretty deep. ' Q.—Where do they put their stuff? A.—Stow it below, I suppose. Q.—I mean to say, did you ever see stuff in the cabin stowed away? A.—Yes, and in every hole and corner. Q.—Do you know anything about the size of the cabin of the "Carolena?" A.—No. I did not do any of the joiner work, sir, on her. Q.—Was the position of the cabin changed after the work you did? A.—No. I don't know that it was. Made a" little longer, of course, by lengthening her. Q.—Do you know what the "Carolena" was used for before this work was done? A.—I don't know whether she was sealing before or not. Q.—Well, what was Captain Urquhart's occupation? A. —I always knew him as a master mariner and pilot. Q.—Do you know anything about the "Carolena" with reference to that? A.—She used to belong to the pilots. Q.—And the pilots here go out for some days at a time, don't they, waiting for vessels. A.—Yes, I have known them to go down to the Cape. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing. Q.—Mr. Robinson, you have been a shipwright and boat- builder. What boats have you built? Sealing boats? A.— I could not begin to' tell you the number, Q.—Sealing schooners? A.—No, I never built any sealing schooners. Q.—In your work on this vessel, when you took her she had her cabin on board; she hadn't been stripped inside? A.— I cut her in two. Q-—What was the size of the cabin? A.—I couldn't tell you. Q.—Well you have some idea. A.—I might say it was 12 • feet, and it might only be 10. Q.—Twelve feet square? A.—About. Q.—What was the size of her forecastle? A.—A pretty long forecastle; about 12 feet long. Q.—Clear across the beam? A.—T couldn't tell you. Q.—Did you put in any bins for salt? A.—No. Q.—As a shipwright were you running a yard of your own or were you the employe of another? A.—I am at Mr. Lang's yard a good deal of the time. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Q. —After she was lengthened you mean? A.—After she was lengthened. Q.—Was she built of pine? A.—Yres. To the best of my knowledge she was built of western pine on this coast. Q.—Oregon pine? A.—Yres. Q.—When you say a vessel cost $150 and up a ton, do you mean builders' tons? A.—Yes. Q.—How do you know? A.—That is a general supposition. Q.—Do you know anything about it? A.—I woudn't take it for $150.. Q.—Do you know anything about it? A.—I have never uili any schooners? That is my idea. Q.—But you have never had any experience in building schooners at all? A.—No. Q.—Did you ever buy a se-.hooner? A.—Never. Q.—Sell one? A.—Never. Q.—And never built one? A.—I never built one. Q.—To whom did you give that receipt (showing witness receipt.) A.—Captain Piqiihart. Q.—Is that in your handwriting? A.—(referring to signature) Mine. Q.—In whose handwriting is the rest? A.—I presume Captain Urquhart's. Q.—When did you give it? A.—Whenever the job was finished. Q.—To him? A.—To Captain Urquhart. Q.—After you had completed your work on the "Carolena" at what did you value her per ton? A.—(Hi, I suppose about $1.65. Q.—She was worth then more than it would cost to builel a new vessel? A.—You have got to take the vessel apart; you cannot take her apart for nothing. Q.—Then that vessel that has been cut in two, and has been lengthened, is better than a new vessel? A.—No, sir, cei't'ainly not, it takes more labor to do it that way, she is worth more after you have finished. It takes more labor in proportion to do that work. Q.—Is she worth more than a new vessel of that length? A.—I don't say she would be worth more to the owner; Q.—Was she worth more on the marked? A,—I understood she was worth about $5,000. Q.—You don't answer my question. Was she worth more than a vessel of the same length, a new vessel? A.—No. Worth as much anyhow, all parts that I know of her were sound. Q.—How old was she? A.—I don't know. Q.—If she was 25 years old when you lengthened her, would that make any difference in her value? A.—Not if she was sound. to 20 30 40 SO '57 Q.—When 3'ou did the work on her did you also put on a new deck? A.—Pretty near a new deck. Q.—More than over the new parts you put in, the lengthening? A.—Y'ou must make shifts; you cannot put it square across. Q.—I mean did you put on any more than just over the new piece you inserted? A.—Y'es, you must make shifts. Every alternate one almost. Q.—Just the length of the board, but not the whole length of the vessel? A.—Some of them the entire length. Q.—Did you find any rotten planks in the deck? -V.—No, they were very sound. Q.—Did you take any pieces out of her hull and put in any new ones? A.—Y'ou must make shifts; you have got to go way to each end. Q.—Did you take any pieces out of her hull, besides the lengthening that you put in? A.—Yes. Q.—And-put in new ones? A.—Yes. Q.—AVe-re they rotten? A.—No. Q.—What did you take them out for? A.—Because you have got to make shifts of planks. Q.—Did you put in any other pieces beside that? A.— Not that I know of. Q.—Don't you know? A.—You must go through each end to make the shifts. Q.—Did you put in any other pieces beside that? A.— Not that I can remember; nothing but what belonged to the lengthening. Re-direct examination. Q.—Did she need any new work at any place that you observed? A.—Not that I remember. Q.—If you had, you would have made it at the time, I sup-, pose ? A.—Yes. Q.—In the course of cutting her in two in that way, and lengthening her, you had occasion to examine her pretty thoroughly, didn't you? A.—Yes, pretty near all to pieces. Q.—And you say, according to your observation, that she was sound all through? A.—Y'es. Q.—Is there any difference between Oregon pine and Douglas fir? A.—I think the Douglas fir is a little harder. Q.—You say it s a harder wooel? A.—Tougher wood. Henry Ferdinand Siewerd called, and sworn: (Direct examination by Mr. Peters.) Q.—Where do you live, Mr. Siewerd? A.—Victoria. Q.—What is your occupation at the present time? A.— master mariner. Q.—Are you emgaged in the sealing business? A.—Yes, 60 Q.—I believe you command a sealing vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And I dare say are interested in them? A.—Y'es. Q.—Have you any interest in any of the claims before this Convention? A.—None, sir. Q.—How long have you had anything to do with the sealing business in Victoria? I started in 1887, in September. Q.—In whose employment did you go at that time? A.— Hall, Goepel & Co. Q.—At Victoria? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Were they engaged in the sealing business? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Had they any ships when you went th A. They had an interest in the schooner Sapphire and also in the schooner "Waneta." w IS8 io 20 40 So 60 Q.—I belive your connection with the firm of Hall, Goepel & Co. no longer exists? A.—No, sir, I left them in 1891. Q.—Whilst you were with Hall, Goepel & Co-, did they purchase any se:hooners, and if so, how many? A.—I went east three times for them and purchased the schooner "Aurora," "Ocean Pelle," and "Geneva" in 1887, 1889 and 1890. Q.—Where diel you go to purchase these schooners? A.— To Halifax, Nova Scotia, and then to Lunenberg. Q.—That is in 1887? A.—Y'es, sir; the "Aurora." Q.—Now if you will tell me the tonnage? A.—About 70 tons. Q.—Was she a new vessel when you bought her? A.— About six years old; she had been a fisherman. Q.—What was her initial price? A.—The first cost was $2,400. Q.—What did she stand you before you left Halifax with her? A.—$6,600, or thereabouts. Q.—What did it cost to bring her around here? A.— About $1,200. Q.—So that with those figures she stood you here about $7,800? A.—About that; yes, sir. Q.—She was afterwards engaged in seal fishing? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—The next vessel that you got—you mentioned three vessels—did you buy more than three? A.—I bought the fourth one, the "Dora Sieward." Q.—In what year did you buy her? A.—In the year 1891; October, 1891. Q.—You bought her where? A.—I bought her at Lunenberg likewise. Q.—Was she on the stocks when you bought her? A.— She was new on the stocks; yes, sir. Q.—What did that vessel cost yon when you left Halifax? A.—When I left Halifax she cost $8,748. Q.—What did she stand your firm when she was landed here? A.—Landed here on April 21. Crew's wages paid in full, total cost of schooner delivered at Y'ictoria was $9,039.20. This includes new spars, new fore-sail and jib, cordage, also one hunting boat and a stern boat. Q.—Could you give me her tonnage? A.—93 tons. Q.—She was also employed by your firm in the sealing business? A.—Yes, sir No by Hall, Goepel & Company, but by another company I formed afterwards. Q.—Did you take another vessel? A.—The "Ocean Belle" was next. She was bought in 1890 at a first cost of $2,400; she was 80 tons register. (4.—Was she new. A.—She was between six and seven years old. Q.—Where was she bought? A.—At Lunenberg. Q— Originally cost $2,400? A.—Originally cost $2,400. Q— Cost leaving Halifax? A.—$6,800. Q.—Stood you when here? A.—$8,000 or a little over. Q.—She was used by Hall, Goepel & Company as a sealing vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Y'ou have another one, the "Geneva" ? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where was she bought? A.—At Lunenberg likewise. Q.—By yourself? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—What did she cost? A.—She cost in the neighborhood of $8,700 landed here. Q.—Her tonnage? A.—Her tonnage, I think, was about 90. She cost $3,000 first cost, was five years old. Q.—Now we have then from you the statement that you in the course of your experience have gone to Lunenberg, Nova Scotia to buy no less than four schooners. I want you to explain to the Commissioners why you took the trouble of going away around there? A.—Well, at the time we found it the cheapest way to get a good, reliable vessel, notwithstanding to 20 30 40 60 159 the risk of bringing her around. Building here was rather costly in those days and we found it cheapest to go there. Q.—Just take those four vessels we have spoken of that you yourself brought around from Lunenberg, if you had been asked to sell them here at the very figure that they cost you landed here, would you have sold them at that price1 A.—No, sir. Q.—Were they as a matter of fact saleably worth more? A.—They were, sir. Q.—And if you at that time had built vessels of that description here in Victoria, could you have built them for those figures or would they have cost vou more? A.—They would have cost considerably more in the early part of 1887 and 1889. Q.—And would the same remark apply to 1886? A.— Well, it would naturally, because befeire the C. P. R. was opened labor was scarce here. Q.—As a matter of fact, can you build vessels cheaper now or the last few years from 1890. than you could in 1887? A.—Considerably, I think. Q.—Supposing you have a vessel of say 90 tons, and a vessel of say 30 tons, and 3-011 come to figure what they cost per ton, would the small vessel cost more, per ton than the large vessel? A.—The small vessel would cost considerably more per ton. Q.—Before going to the trouble of going around to Lunenberg to get these Nova Scotia schooners, did you make enquiries as to whether 3'ou could get suitable vessels on this side? A.—Yes. sir, I enquired at San Francisco, and likewise corresponded with parties on the Sound. Q.—Of course, now I refer particularly to the year 1887; at that time did 3^0 u enquire? A.—Before I went east the first time, my firm had left it with me, and I wanted to do what was right and left nothing undone to inform myself where the best market would be. Q.—And having made those enquiries, you concluded that it was the cheapest way to go east? A.—I did. Q.—Y'ou considered that a good business transaction. A. —I did. For illustration in the year 1891 the schooner "Victoria" was built here; she cost over $11,000. Q.—How much tonnage? A.—About 75 tons. Q.—Was she built for sealing? A.^—Yes, sir. Q.—Who built her? A.—I think Mr. McDonald and Mr. Clark; one of the local builders anyhow. Q.—In addition to the actual cost of bringing them around from Halifax is there any considerable risk of their being lost? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—As a matter of fact have some of the vessels been lost coming around? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You know perfectly well what that is—about 5 per cent., perhaps 6 per cent, up here. The standard rate is 4 1-2 per cent., New York to San Francisco. Witness:—One vessel started for me, the "Aurora," and she came to grief in the Straits of Magellan. Q.—How long does it take one of these vessels to come around as a rule? A.—I went one time in 108 days, and another time in 157. Q.—You brought them around youself? A.—Two of them. Q.—I believe you were not personally acquainted with the "Carolena?" A.—No, I was not. Q.—But from your knowledge of vessels, take a vessel-in 1887 suitable for sealing, and of the tonnage of 32 tons or thereabouts, would 3rou consider $4,000 a high or low valuation? A.—I should consider that a very reasonable valua- III is 1911} tion considering the experience I had afterwards in buying vessels. Q.—Y'ou state as a matter of fact that you never saw the "Carolena?" A.—I will say that in 1891 I paid $3,200 for a vessel about 30 years old. . Q.—What tonnage was she? A.—40. Q.—Anel that was in 1891? A.—1891 or the beginning of 1892. Q.—I believe 3Tou have not any special knowledge of the value of skins in 1886 and 1887? A.—No, sir, I was not managing owner. Q.—Were you sealing in the year 1887? A.—No sir, I arrived here with a vessel in 1888, in April. Q.—Therefore you cannot give an3' evidence as to the sealing operations that year? A.—No, sir. Q.—That is all the vessels that you can give us any statement about? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you from your experience made any calculations as to the annual cost of provisioning one of these vessels 20 for a sealing voyage. That is settled by the number of men eunployed isn't it? A.—Yres, sir, since I have been managing the "Sieward" my provisions when canning white hunters were in the neighborhood of $2,200. Q.—Just give me her tonnage again? A.—93 tons. Q.—And she carries how many men? A.—She carries 6 boats—stern boats, 18 or 21 men; 22 men. The provision bill for the round voyage of about 9 or 10 months would be $2,200. Q.—Then you have an ammunition bill ? A.—An ammuni- 30 tion bill besides. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Are you able to say about how much you allow per day per man? A.—No Your Honour I have never gone into that. Q.—You speak from }'our experience of having run that vessel for how many 3'ears? A.—We had white hunters two years—three 37ears. That is a fair average compared with other vessels likewise of the same tonnage. Q.—That is the amount it actually cost you for those 40 three years? A.—The store bills here and in Japan to provision the vessel for 9 or 10 months, whatever the vo3rage may be. Q.—That is your actual experience? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is about $100 to a man. Mr. Peters:—A little more than $100 per man. To Witness:—When the vessels come back they sometimes have provisions left on board have they not, flour, and things 5° of that description? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Are these practically of any value when they return? A.—We get very little for them; of course carrying them aboard the vessel—the salt water doesn't improve them any. q.—go that Avhen they come back they have no saleable value. For instance, what is the flour sold for? A.— Sometimes get 50 cents a sack, and sometimes 60, according to the e-.ondition. Q.—Who is it bought by? A.—The cracker bakers, bis- 60 cult makers. Q.—And you get a mere nominal sum? A.—50 cents or 60 cents. Q.—Hardly a cent a pound? A.—About that. Q.—In addition to the provision bill you must have a considerable bill for amunition. Could you give us any idea how much ammunition a vessel of 21 men would take. Can you tell us what quantity of powder, for insjance, you would put on board that vessel for the season? A.—I figure on an m average about from $300 to $350 to keep her up to her regular standard. Q.—That is the powder, shot and shell ? A.—Y'es, sir, primers, etc., wads and all that sort of thing. Q.—And if 3rou were starting out the first season would the cost be more or less? A.—The "Dora's" outfit the first season was $1,250, guns, powder, ammunition, shot, wads, etc. Q.—Now we can easily divide them into guns and ammuni-- lion; you would have how many guns on board? A.—I think (O we purchased fourteen. Q.—At about what? A.—$62 I think. Q.—And the rest would be for ammunition? A.—Shells, powder, wads and all those things. Q.—Then what other expense do you have on a sealing vessel before sending her out? A.—The boats and boats' Equipments. Q.—Y'ou use white hunters, and boats, do you? A.—In those years we did on the "Dora." 20 Mr. Peters:—Possibly I might ask from this witness the value of those boats as it comes up in the case? Mr. Dickinson:—I would a little rather put it in the other case. Mr. Bodwell:—This witness is about to sail on a sealing voyage. To Witness:—When are you going? A.—In about three weeks from now. 30 Q.—Your vessel is getting ready? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—The next thing is canoes, and I believe you don't often buy them? A.—Yes, we very frequently buy them. Q.—You hadn't bought any in 1886? A.—No, sir; bought them last year, or the year before. Q.—Are there any other items of expense that you put on board your sealing vessels? A.—Cooking utensils, of course, and a certain amount e)f spare cordage, blocks and sails. Q.—Of course all the ordinary charts and everything of that sort? A.—Yes, sir. 4° Q.—Do you know an^hing about what is called a "slop chest"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you explain to the Commissioners what a "slop chest" is? A.—It is a stock of clothing. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I guess we know what a "slop chest" is. Q.—Ls it usual to carry a "slop chest with a supply of things to be sold to the crew? A.—Yes. Q.—That is sometimes owned by the owner, and sometimes by the Captain? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Is it usual to give any cash to the captain on a long voyage of that description? A.—Used to be in former years. In early days we always carried from $400 to $500 to $1,000. Q.—But it is not so now? A.—No, sir; it is done away with. Q.—But in 1886 it was done? A.—Y'es, sir. I carried it in 1888. Q.—That was the custom then? A.—Yes. sir. 00 Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Captain, when you fitted out the "Dora Sieward" I suppose that was not an exceptional equipment? You did uot give her more than usual for a sealing voyage, or less than usual? A.—Have you reference to the provision bill? Q.—Yes. A.—About $2,000 to $2,200 is a fair average. Q.—If I understand you, that is for a voyage to Behrirg Sea and to Japan before her return? A.—She left here the 11 5o 20 40 latter part of December and returned in the early part of October, going from here to Japan and sailing along the Japan coast, and finally up to Behring Sea. Q.—Supposing, Captain, you fitted out the "Sieward" for a. voyage, we will say, from May until the middle of September. What would you say as to the proportion of this equipment 3'ou would fit her out with? A.—Well, of course I would equalize the matter and find out how many sacks of flour 'A would take, and other things in proportion. Q.—Would you give her more than half the amount you would for half the time? A.—In the proper proportion. Q.—And you would not give her more than half the ammunition? A.—No, sir, I would give her the proper proportion. Q.—And if you were fitting out a ship to go to Behring Sea for the sealing season, from May, we will say—what is the end of the season? A.—The latter part of September. Q.—What equipment would you give her simply to go to Behring Sea? A.—The $2,200, for instance, covers the voyage of ten months, and this would only cover a period of five months. Of course I would take the proportion. Q.—And j'ou give a liberal allowance so that when you come back you have something left? A.—It is better to have sufficient in case of emergencies. Perhaps the ten months' provisions would be sufficient for twelve if it come to a pinch. Q.—And of course you provide ammunition on the "Sieward" for fourteen guns? A.—Each man gets two guns. Q.—Yrou were asked as to canoes, and you said vou had dealt in canoes? A.—The past year, and the year before. Q.—Where do you get canoes? A.—Well, the Indians buy them themselves, but we have to stand by and pay for them. Q.—Then in your trips you employ Indians as well as white hunters? A.—When I first spoke of the $2,200 outfit, we cat- ried then white hunters. The last year I carried Indians. Q.—And what do the canoes cost? A.—They cost all the way from $20 to $40. They have been enhancing somewhat in value as the demand has grown for them. The Indians are getting the best of us. If there is a scarcity of canoes in a place, they make us pay for them. Q.—That has been the tendency within the last three years? A.—Since I have been connected with it the tendency has been to rise in value of the canoes, and in some camps they are lower than in others. Q.—But there was not so much scarcity, and such high prices when you commenced? A.—About two years ago there was about the same demand as now. Q.—Now 3'ou soeak of the fund handled by the capain on starting out on this long voyage— The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Did this witness testify anything as to the cost of canoes? Mr. Dickinson:—He spoke of their taking canoes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—As to Ihe cost of them? 6o Mr. Dickinson:—lie did not on direct examination; I am asking him. The Commissioner on Ihe part of Her Majest3":—We did not catch whether he staled to you. Mr. Dickinson:—He diet, your Honour Q.—Is (he equipment for a sealing voyage better than it was formerly, more liberal and better stores? A.—No, sir, I don't know as they are. Q.—About the same as when you first commenced? A. —Of course there are more canned meats now being used r 163 than formerly; it is cheaper than what salt meat is. Q.—Now, a word as to the vessels. We will take the first vessel of which you have spoken, the 'Aurora." Y'ou bought her in 1887 iu Nova Scotia, and she cost $2,400 I think you stateel, and was six years old? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—What did you buy for $2,400? A.—The vessel as she la3r there, that is, vthe vessel hull, spars, and whatever sails belonged to her, anchors, cables, compass. Q.—In good repair? A.—I had to take my chances on 10 that. Q.—What you added to her was in the nature of overhauling and repairing her? A.—Overhauling the rigging, overhauling the sails, hauling her up on the ways at Halifax. Q.—And what was she worth as she stood before 3rou hauled her out and did her repairing? A.—Y'ou cannot ascertain the trouble until you haul her out and see her bottom. Q.—What was she worth before you had put on any re- 20 pairs? A.—In that market she was evidently worth what I paid for her. Q.—Y'ou elidn't discover that she was worth any more in that market, did you? A.—I went around and drove the best bargain I could, and got the best I could for the money. Q.—What did you estimate her value, as vou hauled her out there? A.—In Halifax? Q.—Yes, in Nova Scotia? A.—I couldn't well put any more value on her than what I paid for her. Q.—You wouldn't say she was worth any more in the 3° market? A.—Of course a man thinks he has got a good bargain, and worth a little more than he has paid for her. Q.—Just give us the value after you had hauled her out and examined her? A.—I considered I had a good bargain at $3,000. Q,—Then what did you do to her to make up the $6,600? A.—I overhauled her thoroughly, had her caulked, had her metalled, and equipped her for a lengthy voyage, provided for all emergencies that might occur, that is, supplied spare sails, and got everything in shipshape. Q.—Put in new spars? A.—No, sir. I think there was a storm try-sail, and a spare fore-sail. - Q.—And'it cost to bring her around $1,200? A.—Thereabouts. Q.—What could you have laid her down here for, could you have laid her down here for the same money without the repairs on her? A.—No, sir. Q.—It wouldn't have been safe to come around on her? A.—No, sir. Q.—And what did you do to the "Dora Sieward" when you bought her ou the stocks new? A.—I put three sheets of copper on the keel, and two sheets up, and then after she was landed proceeded to look her over to purchase her stores, get sails made and get her provisioned. Q.—And the other ships that 3rou purchased, the Ocean Belle and the Geneva, I suppose that they were worth about what 3'ou paid for them before 3rou had done anything to them 37ourself as they stood? A.—Yes, sir, I should think so. Q.—What was the cost of coppering this vessel—the 60 Aurora? A.—I think the Aurora copper was $460, copper and putting on;.it was 18 and 20 ounce metal. Q.—Now, at I he' present time, to illustrate, what could the "Aurora" be built for in 1893, sa3r? A.—I think, at the present time, the local builders can compete, that is, considering the price laid down here. Q.—That is, it is in their favor just the cost of bringing around? A.—Yes, sir. 40 50 pw^r 164 Q.—In favor of the local builder? A.—Yes, sir, it would cost as much to bring a vessel around and lay her down here ' 10 20 as the ae Iditi ons cost. 0.—Now what was the Aurora built of? A.—Of beech, teak and birch. Q.—And of what were her masts built? A.—Oregon Pine I think. Q.—And the Dora Sieward? A.—She is built of hardwood, beech and birch principal^'; her spars, Oregon Pine. Q.—And the Ocean Belle?« A.—The Ocean Belle likewise Q.—And the Geneva? A.—About the same material I guess. Q.—Hardwood, all of them? A.—Yes ,sir. Q.—Did you see any pine ships built in Nova Scotia? A. —Well, the sheathing majr be pine. Q.—The timbering? A.—No, sir, not those fishermen that I have been in the habit of buying. Q.—Y'ou never found any built on the Allantio Coast of pine in all your examination did j'ou? A.—I only examined the fishermen. Q.—Well, fishermen, this class of ships? A.—No, sir, principally beech and birch—hackmatack. Q.—They are better than pine aren't they? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Makes a better and more substantial vessel does it not? A.—Yes, sir, I should judge so. Re-direct examination. Q.—There is one question I want to bring out, and that is in regard to the purchase of canoes? You stated to Mr. Dick- 30 inson'that you bought some canoes. That was in late years? -V.—This past year and the year before. Q.—With regard to the year 1886, or 1887, you did not purchase any canoes? A.—No, sir, 1888 was the first year I went out with Indians; I did not have to purchase any. Q.—Do you remember the first 3rear 3'ou did actually purchase canoes? A.—In 1895. Q.—So that your knowledge of the selling price of canoes is confined to the time when you dealt in them? A.—Yes, sir. 40 Q.—And you don't give any evidence as to the value of canoes in 1886? A.—No. sir, because I didn't have any. Q.—And I understand you to sa37—I don't know whether it was correct or not—that wdiat you have to pay the Indians depends very much on circumstances? A.—If there are but a very few canoes on hand they put the price up according to the supply. Q.—You were asked by my learned friend as to what wood these vessels were built of, and you stated some of the vessels, naming them were built of beech and birch—hardwood. 5o My learned friend seems to think it is the best wood in the world. Do 3rou know much about the difference in woods? A.—I don't claim to be a shipbuilder. I understand Mr. Dickinson to mean Nova Se:otia pine, I do not mean Oregon pine. Q.—You mean to say that a vessel built of Oregon pine would be far better than hardwood? A.—I am qualifying that now. I understood Mr. Dickinson to say Nova Scotia pine. g0 Q.—The "Carolena" is supposed to have been built of Douglas fir; is that good material? A.—Yes, sir; the "Wan- eta," about 35 years old, bought by me in 1891, has got the same bottom on her yet, of Douglas fir. Q.—So that is every bit as good as hardwood? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—So that if j'ou were purchasing a vessel as between one built of hardwood and one built of Douglas fir, would there 16s he any choice? A.—I would take the one as readily as the other. Q.—With regarel to provisions, you have given us a general statement. What class of provisions do you put on board these sealing ships? A.—We have in the main carried the same kind of provisions—good, substantial and with more or less canned goods, aiid so forth. Q.—Do the men require to be well fed? A.—Reasonably io fed, yes. No extravagance or luxuries about it. Q.—Good food? A.—Y'es, sir; good, substantial food. Q.—What kind of canned goods? A.—Here in late years it has been found that canned beef and mutton, for instance, is cheaper than barrelled salt beef. Of course salt beef shrinks considerably in the cooking, and canned beef is right there. (J.—I would like to ask 3rou what quantity of salt you carry on a voyage, referring now to the "Dora Sieward," the one we have been referring to all along with regard to supplies— 20 about what quantity of salt do you put on her for a voya A.—From eight to ten tons. Q.—There was another question that Mr. Dickinson asked you in regard to ammunition. He said that if a vessel was going out for a 10 months' voyage, he asked you to compare that with a vessel that was only going out for, say, five months, and he said, or I think he induced you to say that that would necessarily cut the ammunition in two; that you would only want half as much in going to Behring Sea for five months as for the whole ten months? Is that correct? A.—I would 3° have to figure on what catch I expected to make on the Japan coast. Q.—As a matter of fact, do you not look for a big catch in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, but in the present circumstances you lire not allowed to shoot there. In former years that wouldn't hold. Q.—Upon that point, when you were speaking of the ammunition put on board the "Dora Sieward," 3rou were speaking of a trip when you cannot shoot in Behring Sea. i Therefore you want no ammunition for Behrin Sea? A.—Speaking of former 4 years when we were allowed to go to Uehring Sea, of course one half of the ammunition would not be sufficient, because in those years the principal catch, was made in Behring Sea. Q.—There would be a larger proportion of ammunition required for Behring Sea than the other part of it? A.— Y'es, sir. Q.—That is shown, I believe, by the catch for years? A.— Yres, sir. Q.—The largest catch was in Behring Sea until these re- -0 gulations? A.—Explaining the nature of the "Dora's" voyage, I say we went to Japan and up to the Commodore Islands, in that case we would only require one-half the ammunition. Q.—But if you hael been going to the Behring Sea, and using the ammunition there without the regulations, that would not apply, and you would require a larger proportion of ammunition? A.—Y'es, sir. 60 (Re-cross.) A.—In Q.—When did you bring the "Sieward" around? the spring of 1892, purchased in October, 1891. Q.—And you were not giving the equipment of the "Sieward" as required in 1892? A.—I am giving for the full j«ason of 1803, and 1894; she arrived here in April. Q.—You were giving it for 1893? A.—1893, and 1894. O.—YYai there an3' regulations preventing your shooting up there in 1893? A.—We went to Japan then. Q-—Did you go into Behring Sea? A.—No, sir, she has not been to Behring Sea except the last two years. 166 Q.—Well, I suppose you had the same information and knowledge of the purchase of ships in 1886 and 1887 that you have of canoes. In reply to Mr.,Peters you said-you " had no knowledge of the purchase of canoes in 1886 and 1887. Y'ou have no knowledge of the purchase of ships in 1S86 and 1887 for the sealing business, have you? A.—Well, only what I gathered at the time, before I was commissioned by the firm. I informed myself as much as I could at San Francisco and the Sound here, io Q.—You made no purchase of ships prior to 1887? A.— No, sir. Q.—This testimony all has reference to since that time, doesn't it? A.—Yes, sir. 11 William Turpel, a witness called on the part of Great Brit- 2n iiin, was duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Your name is William Turpel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you live in Victoria? A.—Yes,- sir. Q.—What is your occupation? A.—A shipwright. Q.—Where did 3rou learn your trade? A.—I learned my trade first in Nova Scotia, Maitland. Q.—How long ago was that? A.—That was 30 years ago. Q.—And from that place where did you go? A.—Cali- 30 fornia was the first. Q.—And then? A.—From there to Victoria. Q.—How long since 3'ou came to Victoria? A.—18 years last April. Q.—What did you do in Victoria? A.—Well, I worked for awhile at most anything I could do; things were pretty quiet. Q.—How long before 3"OU began to work at your trade, do you think? A.—Oh, not very long, until I worked at my trade. 40 Q-—How did you first begin working, I mean to say In what capacity? .V.—Journeyman, day's work. Q.—How long did 3'ou work in that way? A.—Not very long; three or four years. Q-—And what then? A.—Then I rented a yard, known by the name of the "Star" yard. Q.—Do! 3'ou knew when 3rou rented that yard? A.—I think it waSp. 1883 I rented it. Q.—Had 3rou taken .1113' contract for ships before you rented that 3rard? A.--Not particularly. 50 Q.—How long did you continue that yard? A.—I was there, somewhere about two years, I think. Q.—Did you build any vessels there? A.—Yes; built two 1 mall lug boats (here'. Q.—Then what did you do? A.—When I got clear of that I worked a little spell at journeyman work; then I bought, this Centre ship yard. Q.—How long did you own that yard? A.—I think I owned lhal yard about ten years. Q.—And have been engaged in shipbuilding at that place 60 ever since? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What class of vessels have you built? A.—Some small, and some pretty good sized. A couple of sealing schooners; quite a few tugs. Q.—I believe you have built a vessel of considerable size— a Large steamer? A.—Yes. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—I couldn't say. Q.—Well, generally? A.—Well, T should say she would be 400 tons likely. 20 30 167 Q.—Now before I go into your evidence particularly, do you know an3rthing about the relative value of Douglas fir ane: other woods for shipbuilding? A.—Well, I might be a lit prejudiced, but I think it is the best wood I have ever worked for shipbuilding. Questions by the Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What part'of the vessel do you use it for? The whole hull? A.—The whole hull. 10 Q.—For ceiling, sheathing, timbering out, beams? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What do you use for knees, the same? A.—Yes, sir; it is fine material. . Q.—Above water line and under water line? A.—Yes, sir. Examination resumed by Mr. Bodwell. Q.—I am going to ask you if you know anything about the schooners that had been brought around from Nova Scotia to be used in the sealing business here? A.—Yes, I know a good deal about them. Except one. or two, I think I have hauled them all out on the marine railroad and greased Ways, and done more or less repairs on them. Q.—In that way you think you have seen nearly all that came round? A.—Every one that came from the east, but one. Q.—Have you acquired in that way any information, or formed any opinion as to the relative cost of building a schooner of that class here as compared with the schooners brought around? A.—Well, we couldn't build here that class of schooners of this material we get here for the same money. Q.—About what difference, do you say? A.—1 believe that one of our vessels built of the Douglas fir will outwear three of the birch top. Q.—How would you compare the price of a vessel built here with one brought around from there at the' price at which obtained? A.—Well, of course it-would be a good deal more because they could deliver them here cheaper than to build them here. Q.—How much ailaper? A.—Well, I think quite a little bit. I have talked to quite a few of the owners who have brought them out, and they tell me what they cost here in Victoria. They couldn't be built here for $3,000 or $4,000, it would be the cost of the outfit am'way. Q.—Now, had you anv interest in making that enquiry? A.—I had. Q.—What was it? A.—I didn't like to see them go back Ihere and get them. I thought we could probably build co them hereSist as cheap. Q.—And you made enquiries for that purpose? A.—Yes, sir, that very purpose. Q.—Now, have you built any sealing schooners here vourself? A.—I built two. Q.—What was the first one you built? A.—The "May Belle." Q.—When did yon build her? A—The year 1889-90. Q.—What is her net tonnage? A.—57 tons. Q.—How did A'ou build her, under what circumstances? 6o a.—I just built her for a round sum. I was to build her and spar her, and put the sails on her, for $6,500. That was the contract. Q.—How did that eontract turn out for you? A.—I got left on it. Q.—Exactly; what do you mean by that? You mean you went behind? A.—Y'es. sir. Q.—now much? A.—P.etween $500 and $1,000. 40 i68 10 3° 40 60 Q.—Did you buy your material to good advantage in building that ship? A.—Y'es, one thing probably that made me do it a little eheaper, to start in I had quite a little timber in Hie' yard which I could work in, and I was anxious to see what they could be built for, so I went to work and I built her. Q.—And yet 3-ou had this material on hand? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Which you thought you could use to advantage? A.— Yes, sir. If it had not been for that I would have lost more than I did. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— When was this vessel built? Mr. Bodwell:—In 1889. Mr. Dickinson:—1SS9-90 he said. Q.—Now, did you build any other schooners? A.—Yes, that year I built another. Q.—State the circumstances of the building of that schooner? A.—I was pretty well posted when I started in on her, and I made them an offer what I would build the schooner for; got an agreement drew up; the contract price was $10,500. Q.—Had 37ou any connection with it yourself? A.—I was supposed to take a certain portion when she was completed. Q.— What is her tonnage? A.—She registers 56 tons. Q.—Now, in building that schooner, how did you obtain your materials? A.—I paid everything in cash right straight. Q.—Did you get good prices? A.—I got reduced prices. Q.—And you bought everything for cash; now how did 3'ou come out on that transaction? A.—Well, I paid out 10,430 odd dollars. Q.—-To other people? A.—To other people. Q.—And how much time did you put in on her yourself? A.—Oh, between three and four months building her. Q.—Did 3rou have any foreman or designer, or man of that kind to pay in connection with the transaction? A.—No, I paid no man for that work, just journe3rmen wages. Q.—Did 3rou fit out for the sealing voyage? A.—Yes. Q.—Can you tell us what she cost at Race Rocks ready for sealing? A.—When I towed her down to Race Rocks she cost $13,230.91. Q,—I believe 3'ou have the vouchers for all those payments here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that is the exact amount taken from the vouchers? A.—Yes. Q.—Now then, Mr. Turpel if yon had to build that schoner I he' "Sadie Turpel" in Victoria in the year 1886, or any year from 1884 to 1887 would it have cost more or less to build it. A.—Well I have an idea i( would cost a little more. Q.—Why do you say that? A.—The metal spikes and galvanized spikes were a good deal higher at that time. Q.—Can vou give us anv idea of the prices of those articles? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do 3'ou want us to build the schooner here. I should think you had gone far enough into that. Mr. Bodwell:—I thought it would be useful to the Commissioners to compare the prices, and then it would be simply a matter of argument and inference as to whether the cost would hv higher e>r lower. The witness says il costs 169 IO 20 40 more. I asked the question because I thought it would be useful to Your Honours to consider generally the prices of the principal materials for those years as compared with the year in which the Sadie Turpel was built. The Commissioners on the part of the United States:— Take your own course. Q.—You say the cost of metal spikes was much higher then? Now then take lumber? A.—Lumber at that time per thousand would average from about $16 to $26, and when I built it was from $12—right now it averages from $8 to $18. When I built the Sadie I think I paid $10 per thousand for round iumber, and $25 for decking, averaging about $16. Q.—Take the iron work? A.—The iron work is a good deal cheaper now than it was then, and when I built the Sadie it was a lot cheaper than when I first started in business here. Q.—What did you pa3r for labor in 1886? A.—$4 on the work—$5 up till lately, but reduced now. Q.—Speaking generally, Mr. Turpel, what would you say would be the cost per ton of building a vessel in Victoria in the years around about 1886 and 1887? A.—Well it certainly could not be done for less than $175 to $200 a ton. ' Q. Outfitted for the sealing voyage? A.—Yes. Q.—What would yon say would be the cost of building a vessel ready to be fitted out for a sealing voyage? A.—I mean she would be all ready but taking her stores, I didn't include the rigging; have her ready for about $175. Q.—What measurement are you speaking of now? A.— I don't'know much about measurements, only the register measurements. Q.—Do you know about the "Carolena?" A.—I know a little about the "Carolena." Q.—What would you value her at generally? A.—I done a little job on her once for Mr. Munsie, but I wouldn't say about! her value. If she was as good as they say she was, I should think she would be worth about $4,000. Q.—That is, if she was the character of vessel that has been describee!? A.—Y'es; but I don't know. (Recess taken until 2::30.) 60 At half past two in the afternoon the Commissioners resumed seats. The examination of the above witness, William Turpel, was continued. (By Mr. Bodwell.) Q.—Have you an3r interest in the claims which are now being investigated before this Commission? A.—No, sir. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Mr. Turpel, were you engaged in shipbuilding in 1886? A.—I was working at that business. Q.—Did you have charge of a yard? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you build any schooners other than those two you have named? A.—No sealing schoners. Q.—Did you build any in 1886? A.—That is what I cannot say. Q.—Did you bid on any sealing schooners In 1886? A.— No, I did not. Q.—Do yon know of anv one bidding on any vessels in 1S86? A.—No. Q.—Were there any vessels built here in Victoria in 1886? A.—Well, there were no sealing schooners, I don't 1*0 Ii I ii think. I do not know about the "Sa3-ward" when she was built, but she was Ihe first that was built here. I do not know of any being built on that date, although there might be. Q.—Do 3'ou think there was any demand here for schooners for sealing purposes in 1886? A.—That is what I cannot say. Q.—You know of no bids being made by any one? A.—I made none whatsoever for am' sealing schooners in that day. 10 Q.—What is the difference between 'Douglas fir" and "Oregon pine," is there any difference? A.—I do not know any difference whatever. Q.—Are the3' the same price? A.—They may not be, but if there is any difference I do not know. We always call it Douglas fir here, and some call it Oregon pine. Q.-^You have worked in Douglas fir in constructing vessels? Have 3'ou used any other woods? A.—Nothing but Douglas fir here. Q.—That is the onl3r wood 3'ou have used? A.—Or island 20 oak for stems. Q.—The two vessels 3'ou built were both built of Douglas fir entire^'? A.—Douglas fir. Q.—What is the difference, if an3r, between builders' measurement and registered tonnage? A.—That is what I cannot say. Of course builders' measurement is the largest and it would give 3rou the most tonnage. Q.—How much more? A.—It would be the outside of the ship and the registered would be the inside. Q.—How much more? A.—That I am not prepared to tell 3° 3'ou. Q.—How many cubic feet in a builder's ton? A.—I .did not figure that out. Q.—How man3r cubic feet in a registered ton? A.—I do not know; I cannot answer that straight. Q.—I believe you stated that in the winters of 1889 and 1890 3-ou built a vessel at the contract price of $6,500, and that 3'ou lost $500 upon it, so that that vessel would cost about 7,000? A.—Yes, I think I lost more than $500 upon il. Q.—$500 is what you staled? A.—Y'es, sir; that is about 40 it. Q.—$500 is what you have stated? A.—Y'es, sir, that is about it. Q.—What was the tonnage of that vessel? A.—If I do not mistake it registered 57 tons. Q.—Y'ou built her on a calculation of registered tonnage, did you? A.—Yes. Q.—Is that customary in building vessels? A.—Yes, so far as' I know. Q.—You built the "Sadie Turpel" the following year? A. 5° -Yes. Q.—What was her cost? A.—$1.0,400, I think. That was her contract price, I believe. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—56 tons. Q.—It seems that in 1889 a vessel with a ton less burden cost $3,500 more than a vessel of the size of the "May. Belle." ■ Is that so? A.—That is so. Q.—Did you ever do any work on the "Carolena"? A.— I did a small job on the "Carolena." 60 Q.—Was she hauled up? A.—No, I did not haul her up. The work was done on the deck on the water. Q.—When was that? • A.—I do not remember the date, but I believe' i( was the last time she was in the harbor, be fore she went up north lhat time she was seized. . Q.—Did you go over her them? A.—I do not remember I was hireel to do some work, and some little jobs, and 1 done> it and hd't her. 171 Q.—Did you see her outfitted and ready to start? A No, sir. Q.—What work did 3'ou do on her? A.—I think it wa on her bulwarks and on her rail. It was a very trifling job. Q.—From your personal knowledge of the "Carolena," are you competent in your own mind to place a value upon her? A.—No. Q.—Now, in 1892, T believe that you made a bid upon a 35-ton vessel, and you made that bid in writing to one E. A. 10 Holman? Do you recall that fact? A.—No. Q-—You do not recall it? A.—I have no knowledge of it. If I could see my bid I would say JJ did, but without that I would say that I! did not. Q.—I will read this to you, which is to be found in Vol. VII. of the Congressional edition relating to the fur seal arbitration, page 52, and Exhibit F before the Paris Tribuna Mr. Bodwell:—What statement are vou reading? 20 Mr. Lansing:-—Mr. Turpel's. . Mr. Bodwell:—His own statement? Mr. Lansing:—His own statement. Mr. Lansing:—I am reading from this copy, but I' will produce the original. It says: "Bid for building 35-ton Schooner.' "Central Ship Yard, Victoria, B. C, Nov. 16, 1892. 30 "I do agree to build a 35-ton sealing schooner, and furnish model and all materials. She will be a fast sailer. Will be next to "Haicyon." I will furnish first-class stock, and do the work to the satisfaction of who may superintend the building. All will be done in accordance with the specifications now on view for the sum of Five Thousand Dollars. This includes lining, and stern-post for steam if required. 'WILLIAM TURPEL." Q.—Do you remember the circumstance of writing that? 4° A.—I do not remember that, but I do not say that.it is not so. I would like to see my writing on it. But still it is not a bad bid. A 35 ton schooner at $5,000 is not bad. Q.—Would you have made a bid of that kind? A.—That would not be too bad in 1892. Q.—That would be about the price? A.—She was.small. Q.—She was 35 tons. A.—I do not remember that transaction, although I do not say it was not so. If I see it in my own writing I wil say I did so. But if I do not I.will say that I did not. I do not remember. 5° Q.—Now, Mr. Turpel, in regard to the models used for sealing vessels to-day, do you now follow the lines of the "Carolena" and vessels of that stamp in building. A.—I never saw the "Carolena's" lines in building. Q.—Y'ou never saw her out of the water? A.—No. Q.—Was she the usual model of vessels built when yon were engaged in building sealing vessels. A.—Something similar no doubt. Q.—Did you go down into the Carolena's hold? .A.—No, I never was in it. 60 Q.—Now, with regard to the outfit of the Sadie Turpel, how much did you state that it cost to provision her for eight months cruise? Mr. Bodwell:—He has not spoken of provisioning at all. Mr. Lansing:—He fixed it at 3,000 and it must include that (To witness:) YYhat was the outfit of the' Sadie Turpel? A.—It was about $2,780 without provisions. 172 Q.—If 3'ou have the items there will you tell us how that was made out. A.—It was for ammunition, guns, tin-ware, drugs, charts, furnishings, bolts, clock, chronometer, chronometer box, coal, salt, $510 for advance wages, towage to Race Rocks ,and insurance. Q.—That was an entirely new outfit for the vessel? A.— That was her outfit except the provisions. Q.—You put in everything there except the provisions? A.—Y'es. Q.—Why did you leave out the provisions? A.—These other things were paid for, and the provisions came from Rithet and Company, and I did not get the bill at the time. Q.—Everything in that outfit was new and complete? A.— —Everything was new. Q.—How many boats had 3rou on board? A.—Six sealing boats and stern boat; seven boats in all. Mr. Bodwell:—Have you got the original document in reference to that tender which you asked the witness about. Mr. Lansing:—No. Mr. Bodwell:—I would like to have the original document because I want to examine him on it. Mr. Lansing:—We will produce it. 1|||§£. Bodwell:—When that is produced I will close the rest of the witness' re-examination. Re-examination by Mr. Bodwell. From that statement which you have in your hands, give us all the classification of items under the head of outfit, with the amounts of each. I do not want the names, but just the items and the amounts. Cannon and carriage $ 65.00 Ammunition 491.95 I Guns I 360.00 Tinware 13.75 Drugs 10.00 Charts 15.00 Furnishings 68.00 Repairing chronometer 10.00 Customs dues, 15.00 Six boats 636.00 Stern boat 85.00 Clock 4.00 Chronometer box 4.00 Chronometer 110.00 Cash paid for coal vard 72.00 Salt ' 27.00 Men's advance wages 510.00 Ballast 55.00 Towage to Race Rocks 15.00 California Insurance Co 70,00 Sun Life 140.00 Total 2,780.70 Q.—That is the cost of the outfits? A.—Y'es. Q.—You were asked about the comparison between the "May Belle" and the "Sadie Turpel." What was the difference in the work you did on the "May Belle" and on the "Sadie ''urpel?" A.—1 would like to explain just one moment where the difference in the cost came in. The "May Belle" was a flat bottom boat, very easily built, and measured a lot for her size. But the "Sadie Turpel" was long and narrow, and sharp and she is a large boat, and registered ver3' litle tonnage comparatively. L73 10 2© Q.—Yrour contract for the "May Belle" did not include anything but the hull and standing rigging? A.—Y'es. Q.—And in the Sadie Turpel you put in everything, fitting her for sea? A.—Y'es. Q.—I think you said you worked in Nova Scotia and in California at your trade? A.—Y'es. Q.—And you have also said that you repaired nearly all the schooners that came around from Nova Scotia? A.—Yes. Q.—Now, when 3rou were making 3-our comparison between Douglas fir and other woods, on what experience and information were you basing it? A.—Well, the experience I have had in Douglas fir is that I have handled some very old vessels here, and the majority of them were very sound when old. Take the eastern vessels with hard wood, I have not seen one but what was a little defective around the counters. Q.—You say you have repaired some vessels built of Douglas fir that were pretty old. Can you mention any one of them? A.—Just lately I had been repairing in the steamer "Etta White," and they claimed her to be thirty 3rears old. (I—Wnat was she built of? A.—Of what I would call Douglas fir. Q.—What was her condition? A.—I stripped her deck, and her beams were as sound as the day they went in, and everything.was sound and in good condition except a little bit around her counter. Q.—Did you work on hard wood in these other places? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do 3° vou not think, Mr. Bodwell, you are going back on your direct examination? Mr. Bodwell:—Perhaps so, your Honour. Re-cross-examination b37 Mr. Lansing. Q.—Y'ou stated that the item for guns was $300, is that correct? A.—Y'es. Q.—How man3r guns did you have on board? • A.—We had twelve guns. 40 (2.—Shot guns? A.—Yes. Q.—And how many boats had you on board? A.—Six sealing boats and one stern boat. Q.—And vou paid $636 for these? A.—Y'es. Q.—Did they have the sails and oars? A.—No. Q.—Did you supply the sails? A.—I supplied the sails. Q.—Where does ihat item appear? A.—That came in with the other outfit from Marvin & Co. There was so much canvass, and the sailors made their own sails. ^Q Q.—Anel what about the oars? A.—The oars came outside of the boats altogether. Q.—Who did 3'ou buy them from? A.—It must have cost a little more if they are not included in that; but they must come in Marvin. & Co.'s bill. Q.—They don't appear in that statement? A.—No. Q.—You are sure? A.—L am sure. Q.—How many tons of salt did you have? A.—I only had two tons in that lot, which cost $27. We had eight tons from Rithet. 63 Q-—You paid $27 for two tons? A.-*Yes; it was sold at $13.50 a ton at that time. Q.—In 1891? A.—Yes. This closed the examination of the witness. 174 Walter Walker, of the city of Victoria, a witness produced on behalf of lieu- Majest3r, being duly sworn, deposed as follows : 3xamined by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. Q.—Mr. Walker, what is 3rour business? A.—I' am a ship builder. Q.—Where did 3'ou serve your apprenticeship to the trade? A.—In a shipyard iu Scotland. Q.—Where was that? A.—In Barton, on the Clyde; Dennis' was the name of the shipyard. Q.—For how many years were you an apprentice there? A.—For five years. Q.—After that where did you work? A.—I came out to Canada in 1871; after I came to Canada I stayed in Toronto one summer and then I came up on the Dawson route. Q.—What did you do on the Dawson route. A.—We milt two steamers at a place called Port Francis; one above the falls and one below the falls. Q.—After that where did you work? A.—In the Red River country, down on Lake Winnipeg. I was working on a screw propeller for the Hudson Bay Company. Q.—Probably the first propeller built on that water? A.— Y'es; and I' worked on the first side-wheel steamer ever built on that river, for the McArthur Brothers. Q.—Where did you work after that? A.—I came to Oakland, Cal., and worked there for one summer. Q.—What were you doing there? A.—Building a steamer, and I also worked on the docks in California for a while. Q.—Where were these docks? A.—There was one called Hie North Point, and the other Hunters; one was at the north end of San Francisco, and the other was down at the south end. Q.—What sort of work were you doing there? A.—Repairing ships. Q.—And from there you came to Victoria? A.—Yes, right to Victoria. Q.—About what time elid you come to Victoria? A.—I came in January, 1875. Q.—From that time along, what has been your business? A.—I was engaged unlil about 1884 in ship building. Q.—Up to 1885 you were engaged in ship building and repairing vessels here? A.—Yres, sir. Q.—Do vou know the Star shipvard? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What had you to do with that? A.—Well, I was a partner with a man by the name of Colvin; we were the first to put ways there. Q.—You were the proprietors of the Star shipyard? A. —It was called Trahey's shipyard. Q.—In 1883 had you any repairing to do on any particular vessel? A.—Oh, yes, I had charge of the Government, steamer "Sir James Douelas." I hauled her up and put 20 feet about the middle of her and made her larger. Q.—In what capacity did you act in connection with that work? A.—I was foreman. Q —What sort of work did you carry on in Trahe3r's ship- 3'ard? A.—Repairing small steamers and schooners when they came back from wherever they had been. There were not very many schooners in the port at that time. 0,.—You were building small steamers and repairing vessels from time to time? A.—Yes. I might also state that I worked up on the Skeena river in 1876; we built a tug boat for McAllister Bros., and she was ouite a large ship, and plied here as a tug for eight or ten years. O.—In your shipyard, have yon had occasion to overhaul and repair sealing schooners? A.—Ye;s, some times. 175 Q.—Can 3-ou give the names of any of the schooners that you have worked on? Mr. Dickinson:—Is this prior to 1884? Sir. Chas. H. Tupper:—That was in 1883. He can explain about it later on. (To witness) Q.—About what time did you have sound hing to do with sealing schooners? A.—Not earlier than 1882. Q.—Can you name some of these sealing schoners? A.— IO There was the "Favorite," the "Onward," and the "Carolena" was one, and I am not sure but the Henrietta was another. Q.—The "Carolena" is the' vessel we have been talking about in this matter. A.—Yes. Q.—In 1884 were vou Acting Measuring Surveyor for this port? A.—Y'es. Q.—In what month? A.— In the month of April. Q.—Were you afterwards appointed officially for that position? A.—Yes. Q.—In what month? A.—In.May, 1884. 20 Q.—As acting measuring surveyor for the port of Yictoria had you anything to do with the Carolena? A.—Yes; she had some alterations made to her, and I was called in to put measurements on he>r? Q.—I!y whom? A.—SI the Customs authorities at this pott. Q.—Y'ou were called in for that purpose? A.—To measure (he alterations which had been put on in consequence of these repairs. 30 Sir C H. Tupper:—I may state for the information of the Ce)muiissioners, and particulaity' in regard to the suggestion made by the Commissioner for the United States that the measuring certificate and the formula of papers required in this connection will be presented later on. We expected to have them during the examination of the surveyor, but we have been disappointed. To the witness.) Q.—Now, in the discharge of your duty did vou examine the Carolena particularly? A.—Yes. 40 Q- Before coming to the case of the Carolena specially, Mr. Walker, I wish to ask 3'ou a couple of general questions: Would you tell us from 3rour experience in Victoria in regard to the price for the construction of vessels, with reference to the materials, labor, etc.; give us the comparative cost between the first years you came here and down from the years 1885 and 1886, to the present time. A.—Well, in these years wages were very high. The placer mines were going, and $5 per day was considered to be the wages of a ship carpenter. During my first job I worked for five 50 months at $5 per day. Q.—What are wages now here? A.—$4 a day. Q.—What was the cost of lumber then? A.—$14 per thousand. Q.—What is the price for the same class of lumber now? A.—$8 per thousand. Q.—Have you anything to say as to the fastenings, etc? A.—At that time we got it altogether from the United States as we were too far away from Canada. Of course we were subject to a large duty in bringing goods from the States. There was another thing, and I do not know whether it was a fault on the part of the ship builders or not. but they did not think anything good could come from Canada in the line of shipbuilding at that time, and we got it all from San Francisco. It came originally from New York, of course. Q.—The people in the ship building business at that time got some of their material from the United Sates instead of 60 176 ill Hit 10 20 40 60 importing it from the eastern Provinces of Canada? A.— Yes. q.—ijg that the custom now? —A.—No. Q.—Had the distance in those days anything to do with the preference? A.—I think so. We could not get the material in time, and when a man wanted a boat he made up his mind to have it pretty soon. M—So that you imported these materials from the United States and paid the duty instead of waiting for them to come from the east? A.—Yes. Q.—Were Canadian materials required for the construction of vessels kept in stock here in these earlier days? A. —No, not in any large quantities. Q.—Speaking generally, do you recollect what the rate of duty was on these materials? A.—It ranged from 171-2 per cent, to 25 per cent.. Q.—Can you tell us about what percentage of the construction of a ship was made up of these articles upon which you paid duty? A.—We considered about 30 per cent. Q.—You are speaking now in the rough? A.—Yes, I speak in reference to the ship chandlery work connected with the vessel. Q.—And from these facts you have mentioned, ship building was comparatively costly at that time, I take it? A.—It was. Q.—Did you give me the amount of shipwrights' wages in these days? A.—It was $5 a day for 9 hours and not 10 hours. Q.—Y'ou told us you have had experience in San Francisco. Could a vessel there be constructed in San Francisco cheaper than in Victoria? A.—Yes, very much cheaper, and one reason was, they did so much work there. Q.—You mean there were more ships to be built, and a greater demand for them? A.—Yes; you see you had to make so much preparation to build a small vessel here, that you would incur a large expense before you went to work at all-. Q.—Give an illustration of that. What was the first thing you had to do? A.—We had to prepare a model. Q.—Was that comparatively costly? A.—The model of h schooner would not cost so much, but you lost so much time over it. i'robably the party wanting the ship would want to see the model, and you would have to wait. As soon as your model was made, you would have to get some place to draft it out in detail at full size, and make all your moulds. Not having much work here, 3'ou had to do that for everything you built. When you did all (hat, probably before anything else came along there would be a different class of vessels, and new moulds would be entirely needed. Of course all these things were a big item in a small place like this. Jil—Does not that fact suggest itself as making the cost of ship building very expensive here as compared with other places at that time? A.—Yes, of course. Q.— I suppose the supply of working men was mS con- sianl? A.—No. we could not get them. Q.—How would the supply of working men in Victoria compare with San Francisco? A.—Well, in places like over on the Sound and in Calif ornia they keep different kinds of men for different kinds of work". They are not really what you would call shipbuilders, and they do not get probably half the wages of a ship carpenter. Some of them do boring, and some of them drive trenhels, and over there an educated laborer eloes a good part of the shipbuilding work. Q.—Could you tell what the model of a ship like the "Carolena" would cost? A.—I do not know that it would 177 cost a great deal for her. Probably in makin£ would cost probably $150.. Q.—Could yo.u give the Commissioners an idea as to what you would have to do in 1886 with regard to labour, if you desired to construct a sealing schooner? Was it possible to get that labour in Victoria, or would you have to make any special arrangement for that purpose? A.—Oh, yes, it was not eaS3' to get carpenters here, because there were no many hene. There was so little work to be done that the IO men would not come here. Q.—There was no constant or steady employment in that line. A.—No, not at all. That is just where the trouble came in. They would cross the Sound as soon as one job was done, and then you could not get them to come back when 3rou wanted them. Q.—In the discharge of 3'our duty as measuring surveyor in connection with the "Carolena," had you to make the measurements of that vessel? A.—I took all of her dimensions just as we found the vessel. 20 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—YVhat was his purpose in examining the vessel? Sir Chas. H. Tupper. for the Port. He was acting measurin The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The examination was not for the purpose of classing her? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Not at all. After the alterations he calculated the tonnage (To the witness.) Q.—You had to take the necessary measuresments in order to calculate the ton nage at which she should be registered; is not that so? A. Yres. Q.—Therefore you had to go aver that ship thoroughly. A. —Oh, yes; and having a personal knowledge of that kind of work. I can alwavs tell what a vessel is like when I measure her. Q.—The Carolena had then been repaired and ready for the purpose when seen by you? .V.—She had been repaired and 40 some alterations made, I think she was made larger. I am pretty sure there was something in that line. Q.—She was a complete ship when you began to measure her? A.—Y'es, she was fitted up yevy nicely at that time. Q.—Was she ready for sea? A.—I think she was in the . hands of the pilots here, and she was extra well fitted up at that time. Q.—What style of cabin had she? A.—They were very nice, because the pilots lived on board of her a good deal. I 50 remember taking notice that she was very nicely fitted up. I suppose at that time they could afford to spend money on her. Q.—She was fitted up specially on account of the pilots using her as a pilot boat? A.—Yes. Q.—You say you took particular notice of her finish? A.— Y'es, at that time. It was just after she was fixed up that I measured her. Q.—What would you say as to the lines of the vessel? A. —I could not say much about the lines, but the measure- 60 ments would show what rise of floor she had. I think that would be given in detail. Q.-—Give us a general description of what kind" of a looking ship she was. A.—She looked very well above the water, but I do not know that I took any particular notice of her when she was hauled up. She had a very good deck, and, as I understood, she was well fitted up in the cabin, and there was good work done on her at (he time she was repaired. 12 ^T*S^ I78 Q.—From your knowledge of the "Carolena" and your knowledge and experience of ships and the construction of them, what would be a fair value for that vessel when you saw-her? A.—I should say $4^000. Q.—Could you have built a vessel like the "Carolena" at that time for that amount? A.—Not with everything on board her, anchors and chains and everything of that kind. Q.—What was she built of? A.—Douglas fir. Q.—Now, did you know the "Thornton," which belonged 10 to this port, and which was in the sealing business? A.— Y'es, I knew her. Q.—How did you happen to know that vessel? Did you ever repair her? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Are you offering that evidence in this case, Sir Charles? Sir C. H. Tupper:—This witness will not be a long witness, and instead of recalling him in the "Thornton," "Onward," "Anna Beck," and other cases, I propose, in order to save 20 time, to ask him generally as to the value of these vessels. Mr. Dickinson:—My learned friend objected to that course, and the Commissioners sustained them in formulating the rules. We desire to cross-examine the witness in the "Thornton" case in the light of the testimony in the "Thornton case as it may come in; and we are not prepared to cross- examine him as to the "Thornton" in the "Carolena." Sir C. H. Tupper:—I have endeavored to obtain a copy of these rules, but have not succeeded. My recollection of 3° them supports me in the opinion that there is nothing in any of the rules to prevent this course being followed. We are, of course, under the direction of the Commissioners in the matter, but it seemed to us that it would save the time of the Commissioners as well as the time of the witness to examine him on as many of these general matters as possible. Mr. Dickinson:—The witness lives here. Sir C. H. Tupper:—Yes. 40 Mr. Dickinson:—There is no special reason why he cannot come again. Sir C. H. T,upper:—Except that he has a good deal of business to atijenel lo, and it puts hi in to expense to cemle here. Before 3'our Honours come to any decision on the point, I might suggest that while mj' answer was correct in so far as it intimated that the main object in examining this witness in regard to the "Thornton" was that he should not be recalled in that case; yet it is quite apparent that the evidence would be as relevant to the case of the "Carolena" in regard 5° to the values of these various vessels as was the evidence in regard to all the other sealing vessels that we have gone through. Take the case of the "May Belle" and the various other vessels spoken of for the purposes of comparison. The Cennmissioner on the part of the United States:—I think I ce)rrectl3' express the sentiment of the Commissioners when I hope that we shall not have any further detailed examination of witnesses on either side as we had in reference to Ihe "Ma3' Belle." That evidence should be in the most general wa3'. 60 Sir G. II. Tupper:—I do not at all intend to go into very minute particulars in connection with this case. I intend to ask the witness very generally in regard to the value of the ship. The ('ommissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand the witness lives here and can be recalled at any time. 179 Mr. Dickinson:—I should consent readily, as I have done before, if there were am' special circumstances which prevented the witness being recalled. But, other things being equal, and the witness living here, I would prefer my learnee: friends would put in their cases under their respective heads. Sir C. H. Tupper:—With all due deference, I submit that this evidence is relevant. It may not be an important feature of this case, but it is relevant, particularly in the line 10 of cross-examination adopted by my friends opposite. It is relevant that we should show not merely the value of the "Carolena," but that in support of the direct testimony in that line we should show what were the values of sealing schooners generall3' at that time. Here we have vessels seized in the very same year as the "Carolesa," and it seems to me not at all irrelevant to know what these sister vessels cost, and also generally what craft of that description cost in the year in question. 0 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It would seem to me better to keep the inquiry separate in respect to the several cases, as the fourth rule seems to require. Sir C. H. Tupper:—After the expression of opinion from the Commissioners I shall not insist. I have done with the witness as far as the "Carolena" is concerned. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It would be permissible to get general evidence in this case that would be applicable to the case of any other and then transfer it; 3° but when it comes to specific evidence relating to another case entirely, and having no definite bearing on the present case, it might have the effect of mixing up the cases in a way that rule 4 does not contemplate. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I wish now to ask the witness another question. (To witness) Q.—Mr. Walker, are you able to say anything in regard to the obtaining of schooners suitable Tor sealing at this port in 18S6, or in this province? Were these vessels easily obtained at that time? A.—No, they 40 were not easily obtained. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—What was the condition of the ship market at that time? Was the supply equal to the demand? A.—There- was no supply, and I suppose one reason was that il would take too long to get them up, and nearly till ihe sealing men went east and brought them out from Nova Scotia. A great many came out from Nova Scotia from 1884 to 1887 or 1888. Q.—And the reason of their going to Nova Scotia was be- 5° cause they could not get them here? A.—That was the reason. Q.—You have not been engaged in shipbuilding since 1884? A.—No, except as measuring surveyor. Of course when there is a boat built I survey her. Q.—Surveying is not shipbuilding. I ask you if you have been engaged in shipbuilding? A.—No, I have not been engaged in shipbuilding since then. Q.—Have you been engaged in any other business except surveying for registry? A.—Yes, I am in the coal business. Q.—Supplying ships and private houses? A.—Yes, principally private houses. Q.—When you did. make the survey in 1884, can you le us whether you observed the space occupied by the cabin on the "Carolena?" A.—Yes, I think a good part of the vessel was made into cabin, as I stated before, for the accommodation of the pilots. Q.—At that time? A.—Yes, in 1S84. 60 18o Q.—Did you see the "Carolena" afterwards when she was prepared to go on the sealing voyage? A.—Yes, I saw her, but 1 was not on board ljer. Q.—And had she not then been changed with reference to the cabin? A.—I do not know. Q.—Did she not also have a forecastle for the men? A.— Not at the time I surveyed her. Q.—She had no water tanks then? A.—Not at the time I surveyed her. 10 Q.—Without having the survey to refer to can you remember her when you made the survey in 1884? A.—No, I cannot tell. Q.—Do you know her width? A.—I depended altogether on the figures, I don't remember now. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—I made it 27 tons. Q.—Twenty-seven tons for the "Carolena." A.—Yes. Q.—Was that builder's measurement? A.—No, register tonnage, 100 cubic feet to the ton. The vessel is divided into sections. 20 Q.—How manj' cubic feet to the ton in that register? A. —100. Q.—Is it not 105? A.—No, iOO. q.—Now, in 1882, I think you stated that you had knowledge about sealers. When you were engaged in ship-building 3'ou said you knew something about the value of sealers? A.—Yes. We were referring to some of the older vessels that were here, and I mentioned the "Mary Ellen," I did work on her when she came up from San Francisco, and I did work on the "Onward" and on the "Favorite." 30 Q.—I think you said that in 1884 you did not know of any sealing schooner being built here? A.—Not any sealing schooners in that year. It was two or three years later. Q.—-From your knowledge can you tell of the building of any sealing schooners in Victoria before 1S86? A.—I fancy the "W. P. Sayward" was built in 1886, and she was about the first, I think. Q.—Do you know anything about the building of the • "Gracie" and the "Dolphin" here? A —Yes, I know all about that, they were built in the next yard, and we had the 40 ways at the upper end of the harbor. 0.—Was there any demand for sealers in 1885 and 1886 here? A —Yes, ejuife a demand. Q.—They could be built more cheaply in San Francisco at that time, could they not? A.—They could be built cheaper in San Francisco, but I believe they were got cheaper in the East away in Nova Scotia. Q.—They were; cheaper in San Francisco and away in the East than they were in Victoria? A,—Well, there was no duty to pay on them coming from Nova Scotia, and that was 50 taken into consideration in bu3'ing a schooner. Q.—And 3'ou said in 3'our direct examination that they could be bought cheaper in San Francisco? A.—Yes, because there was a large number of schooners there to choose from. Q.—And you said there were ship yards there where they built a large number? A.Yes. sir. Q.—I suppose if a man wanted a sealer and he could get it better- and cheaper in San Francisco there is nothing to prevent his getting her there in a fair market as they are build- 60 ing large numbers? A.—The duty was considered and that made the price high. Q.—What was the Canadian duty on a fully equipped schooner in 1885 and 1886? A.—It was 10 per cent., I think, and 25 per e-ent. if there was any machinery. Q.—I refer to a sealing schooner without machinery? A —I think it would be 10 per cent. IO 20 30 181 Q.—If sealers were cheaper in San Francisco, did it not have something to do with a failure to build them her —We always looked on it this wa3'; down in a large port like that people own schooners, and have them in a sort of trade that might not be profitable, and they were ready to sell them to the first buyer who would give a fair price. Q.—At San Francisco? A.—Yes, and for that reason our people took advantage of schooners in that position. . Q—They did that right along? A.—Yes. Q.—What was the market value per ton at San Francisco as compared with Victoria, do you know anything about it? A.—Well, old schooners would vary according to what kind they were. Q.—Why do you say old schooners? A.—We never saw a new one coming here from San Francisco. Q.—Does a schooner deteriorate in value when it is built of "Oregon pine" or "Douglas fir"? A.—It makes a difference somewhere. Q.—How much does it deteriorate a year? A.—I do not know if there is any calculation made per year, it depends upon what condition she is in. Q.—Then an old schooner is not worth so much as a new one? A.—If you lay a schooner up and don't use her, she is worth less than if you use her. Q.—But you state that you can buy old schooners cheaper? A.—Yes. Q.—Old San Francisco schooners? A.—Y'es. Q.—Now, when they are built of "Douglas fir" at about what age do they begin to get cheaper? A.—Well, say probably during the first eight years they would not vary or deteriorate perhaps as long as they are well taken care of. Q.—After that how much would they deteriorate in value? A.—It depends upon how well they have been taken care of, but they would deteriorate. Q.—Now, about San. Francisco schooners, from eight years to 25 or 30 years, do you know anything about the market value per ton of San Francisco schooners Here in 1885 or 1886? A.—No. Q.—You can only tell what it would cost to build a schooner here in Victoria where they did not have the ship chandlery material, and where they would have" to pay a high price if they did get it. That is all you propose to tell? A.—That is all. Q.—You do not intend to tell the commissioners the market value of a schooner built for sealing purposes in the port of Victoria in 1885 or 1886? Do you think you have sufficient knowledge to tell that? A.—I never was pricing schooners for sealers, but I have heard of bargains being obtained by going down below. Q.—You have been here and heard the testimony of the other witnesses as'to the value of this schooner? A.—No. Q.—You have just come here? A.—Just. Q.—You said something about the value of sealing schooners in your direct examination. What did you know about the value of sealing schooners in 1886. whether they were built in San Francisco, or Nova Scotia or in Victoria? A.— It was something less than in the first years I came here. 60 The wages were down to about $4 a day in 1886. Q.—The wages were less in San Francisco? A.—Yes. Q.—Would the wages have anything to do here with the price of a schooner built in San Francisco or Nova Scotia of the same class. A.—I' do not know that it would have anything to do with schooners built there. I understood from people buying schooners there that they always tried to find out a schooner which was engaged in some trade that was 40 5o r%*r»?f2-- 182 III it III In! lili 1 ':■■■] 20 unprofitable and these people were always glad to get rid of them. Q.—The owners were glad to get rid of them in 1886? A. These schooners were used in some lines that were not paying and the people here were alwa3's looking out for them. It militated against building schooners here, but at the same time we always considered they got them less than their value. Q.—Do you know anything about the sale of the "Mary io Ellen" in 1886? A.—Y'es, she came here from San Francisco. Q.—Do you know airything about her sale in 1886. A.— 1 was on boarel of her when she came here. I did some work on her deck. Q.—Was she in very good condition? A.—Not very good condition. Q.—How old was she? A.—I think she was very aged. Q.—Do you know? A.—I do not know exactly; Q.—Do you know anything about her sale in 1886? A.— I believe she changed hands a year or two after she came here. Q.—Do you know the price? A.—No. Q.—Do you know what her tonnage was? A.—I sboutd judge about 79 tons or 8° tons, but I never measured her. Q.—She was equipped with regular sealing boats? j-v.— She had no sealing boats on board when I was on her, probably at the last sale she had, but the first time she came here she had no sealing boats. _ Q.—I am speaking about the year 1886 when she was sold. A.—I have no personal knowledge of that sale. Q.—At that time was she not one of the best boats of her class? A.—She might have been in early da3'S. Q.—Do you want ns to understand that she was very old? A.—She was old. Q.—Was she twenty years old? A.—I do not know whether she would be twenty, but she was between ten and twenty to judge of her appearance.. Q.—What were her timbers? A.—I think it was "Oregon 40 pine." Q.—The same as "Douglas fir"? A.—I do not know that it was the same. Q.—Is there a difference? A.—There is very little difference, but we consider our timber around here is better than it is in Oregon, the conditions' are better and it is harder timber. Q.—There> is a difference between the term used by the builders here when they speak of "Douglas fir" and of "Oregon pine? A.—Yes. Q.—Is not yours a lillle better than "American pine'.' A.—Might I be allowed to explain that our timber grows slower and it is harder. Q.—Is your timber better for ship building? A.—Yes. Q.—It makes a more valuable ship? A.—I should judge it does. Q.—It makes a more durable ship? A.—Yes. Q.—Than "Oregon pine"? A.—Ye3, than a good many of 60 ihe vessels I have seen built in Oregon. Q.—I do not say "buill in Oregon," I said, "built of 'Oregon pine." A.—I think I already stated that the "Oregon pine" is of the same class of timber, but the "Douglas fir," having grown in a different climate it varies a little. For instance, on th; mainland timber that comes from there is not so good as what grows on the island, for ship-building purposes, although if is better for house work, it takes a be| t<>r finish. 50 IO 20 40 Go 183 Q.—But the Oregon pine does not make as valuable and durable a ship? A.— It has more gum streaks in it, and in my opinion not so good. Q.—It does not make so durable a ship? A.—I do not think it would last quite so long. Q.—Nor as valuable a ship? A.—Of course, I suppose the longer a ship lasts the more valuable it will be. Q.—You are on the stand here as an experienced shipbuilder and surveyor, and I ask you to tell me whether a ship built of Douglas Fir from this latitude is worth more than a ship built of Oregon Pine? A.—Yes. Q.—It will last longer, and it is worth more? A.—If length of service is taken into consideration it is worth more. Q.—Y'ou think the "Favourite" was built here? A.—Yes, she was built before I came here. Q.—She was built here? A.—She was built on the Island. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—You would not let us examine the witness on that. Mr. Dickinson:—He is talking about the market for sealing ships in 1886, and this is pertinent to the examination. Sir eliarles Hibbert Tupper:—The learned counsel is now on a subject that I proposed to examine^ the witness on, but on account of the decision of the Court I did- not do so. Mr. Dickinson:—This witness spoke in his direct examination of the high value of ships here, and the value of the "Favourite" is therefore pertinent. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—I shall claim the right to re-examine the witness very fully as to all the vessels' he is asked about. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It certainly opens up to re-examination all the vessels asked about. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—To prove the value of this vessel by the value of another vessel in such a manner does look like tiwing to disprove a disputed signature by going into evidence about another disputed signature. I hardly think this is a fair subject for cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I do not think it is material to the issue in this case. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Will you kindly re-state the question, Mr. Dickinson? Mr. Dickinson:—This is a question predicated upon the testimony of this witness telling your Honours about the scarcity of sealing vessels and the demand for them, and the value because of that scarcity, in 1886. The "Favourite" is named in the case here, but the claim is not based on her value at all. Even if it were. I submit that I can go into this evidence. My understanding is correct, Mr. Peters, that you make no claim for the value of the "Favourite?" Mr. Peters:—Unfortunately not. (Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson continued): Q.—You did know the "Favourite" in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—Have 3*ou been on her? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—What "is she built of? A.—She is built of Douglas Fir. Q.—That is the good timber around here? A.—Yes. Q.—Right here on the Island? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you know that the "Favourite" was sold in 1886? A.—She changed hands, but I do not know anvthing about the sale. In fill 184 Q.—Did you know anything about the valuation as she changed hands? A.—No, I do not. Q.—She was old. A.—Yes. Q— As old as the "Mary Ellen?" A.—I do not think she was quite as old as the "Mary Ellon." Q.—Was she in good condition? A.—Yes, as far as 1 know. She had been well kept and repaired from time to time. Q.—Now what was the tonnage of the "Favourite" in good 10 condition as she was and made of this Douglas Fir? A.—I have not gone through her. Q.—Y'ou have been on her, anel you. can say about what her tonnage was? A.—I should say she was probably 75 or 80 tons. Q.—And if you value the "Carolena' built of Oregon Pine at $4,000, what would you value the "Favourite" at in 1886, she being SO tons? A.—I never was called in to value her. I am of the opinion that at that time there were new top sides put on the "Favourite'." and of course that would add very 20 much to her cost. If that was done after the party bought her it would make a material difference in her value as to whether that was done before or after she was sold. Q.—You say that to the best of your knowledge the "Carolena" was worth $4,000 in 1886? A.—After the repairs? Q.—As you examined her and certified her? A.—Yes. Q.—What was the "Favourite" worth? A.—Before or after the repairs? Q.—After the repairs? A.—I should say seven or eight thousand dollars. 30 Q-—And she was eighty tons, and by the same measurement the "Carolena" was twenty-seven tons? A.—I cannot speak about the measurement of the "Favourite," because I never measured her, but I can speak about the "Carolena," for I measured her. Q.—Did you state the "Favourite" was 70 or 80 tons? A.—Judging from her appearance. "Q.—What measurement do you refer to? A.—I have not even seen her registry, but judging from her appearance; that is all I go by. 40 Q-—Have you measured the "Carolena," 27 tons, for registry? A.—Yes. Q.—Judging by the appearance of the "Favourite," what would be her measurement in tonnage? A.—Between 70 and 80 tons; that is from her appearance. The Commissioner on the. part of Her Majesty:—Do I understand that the witness knew sufficient of the "Favourite" to express an opinion of her value? Mr. Peters:—He has not claimed that. Mr. Dickinson:—He has been on her, and stated that if she was in the condition he thought she was, and if she was in good re-pair, she would be worth $7,000 or $8,000. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Did you survey the Favourite? Witness:—No, 3'our Honour. Unless there is a change made in the registry of a ship it does not come within my knowledge. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I did not know whether she had been enlarged or not. Witness:—She was not enlarged. (Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson continued): Q.—Do you remember the schooner "Kate?" A.—There Is one here now; is it the same schooner? 50 60 IO 20 30 40 SO 60 m Q.—I do not know, but I understand she belonged to one of the Springs. A.—Yes, I know the schooner. Q.—What about was her tonnage in 1886? A.—I should not think she was quite as large as the "Favourite." Q.—About how much? 50 or 60 tons? A.—I should say 50 or 60 tons. Q.—Where was she built? A.—I fancy it was up north here. Q.—Bailt of Douglas Fir? A.—No, there was yellow cedar in her, I think. Q.—Are her timbers yellow cedar? A.—I do not know, but there was yellow cedar in her deck when I first saw her. Q.—You don't know what her timbers were? A.—I cannot say. I Q.—In good repair she was worth in 1886 about how much? A.—She was not worth very much at that time, but she was changed altogether after coming here. Q.—Jn 1886 when she was here what was she worth? A.— I should think she was worth about $6,500. Q.—Do you remember about the "Thornton" and the "Onward" being for sale here in 1886? A.—I believe that was about the time the owner of one of them died. Q.—Was she for sale then? A.—Yes, I believe she was put up for sale. Q.—And the "Thornton" also? A.—I am not aware of the "Thornton." Q.—You do not remember that? A.—No. Q.—Do you remember that the "Anna Beck" was put up for sale in that year? A.—I knew the schooner, but I do not know an^hing about her being put up for sale. I knew the schooner "Anna Beck" well. Q.—Was the "W. P. Sayward" that you have spoken of put up for sale in 1886? A.—She changed hands somewhere about that time. Q.—You do not know anything about the price that was paid for her? A.—No. Q.—Do you remember that the "Gracie" and the "Dolphin" were sold in 1886? A.—I do not know, but I do not think it was a public sale. Q.—When you testified as to the value of ships in 1886 you were not very familiar with vessels that were sold in that year, were you, or familiar with their prices? A.—No. Q.—It was not part of your business to keep posted as to the sales? A.—Unless just coming in contact with those who were buying and were personal friends of mine. Q.—Y'ou have no special opportunities to find out the prices of the sales? A.—Not unless I was called in to make a valuation. Q.—Were you called in in !S86 to make a valuation of any of these schooners? A.—No, not of any of these schooners. Q.—So that not having made inquiries, or not having been called in to survey or estimate you do not know what the valuation of schooners in 1886 was? A.—Well, onby hearing about what they cost. Q.—And your knowledge of the cost comes from the estimate of the labor and the cost of building here? A.—Y'es. Re-examined by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. Q.—Mr. Walker, are you interested in any of the vessels for which claims are being made here? A.—No. Q.—Are you interested in any of the claims here? A.— No. Q.—Had you on any occasion to examine either the ' Favorite" or the "Kate" as you had to examine the "Carolena"? A.—No. 186 I il it Q.—Y'ou do not know as much of the construction and build and measurement of these vessels as you do of the "Carolena." A.—No. Q.—Y'ou had no occasion to go through these other vessels thoroughly? A.—No. Q.—Do you know whether repairs were put upon the "Kate" after she came here? A.—She was repaired on the water, there were top sides put on her, I believe, and several other heavy repairs. 10 Q.—She was repaired from the water right up? A.—Yes. Q.—Mr. Dickinson referred to the "Ada" I think, do you know that schooner? A.—Y'es. Q.—You were here when she arrived at this port from Japan? A.—Y'es, I was on board her. Q.—-What was she worth? A.—I e-onsidered her a first- class schooner, she was finished in teak wood, which is a most costly wood. Q.—What was her build? A.—She was a schooner. 20 Mr. Dickinson •—I did not ask him an3'thihg about the "Ada." Sir Charles Tupper; you asked him about several and I thought you mentioned the "Ada." (To witness)-: What was the tonnage of the "Ada" to your knowledge? A.—I should say about 75 tons. Q.—Did you buy a vessel yourself and bring her here at that time? A.—The steam schooner "Mischief." ' Q.—What was the' tonnage of the "Mischief"? A.—The 0 "Mischief" was 58 tons register. Q._When did vem buy that vessel? A.—In 1892. Q.—How old was she? A.—She was built in 1886. Q.—What would she cost in 1886? A.—It was considered about $10,000 with the machinery. (Re-cross-examined by Mr. Dickinson): q.—What kind of a ship was that, was she a steam ship? A.—She was an auxiliary propeller. .0 q.—Where was she built? A.—She was built in Y'akima at the mouth of the Columbia river. Q.—Was she fitted up with sails as well as steam? A.— Yes. q.—Bid she seal? A.—Y'es, until she was ordered home. Q.—Did she go sealing? A.—Yes. q—Where? "A.—On the racific Coast. Q._When was that? A.—In 1892 or 1893. Q.—Did she do any sealing in 1886 or 1887? A.—No. Q.—You stated to' Sir Charles Tupper that you were not 50 interested in these matters at all. and yet yon state now that your ship was ordered out of Behring Sea for sealing? A.—Yes. (By Sir Charles Tupper): q.—1 asked the witness if he had any interest in the claim. (To witness!: You have no interest in any elaim here? A.—Not in any claim here. And the above named witness. Walter Walker, was re- 60 called. (Examined by Mr. Peters): Q.—Is that the original document that you actually made up with reference to the "Carolena"? A.—It is. Q.—I see there are two documents here. A.—Yes, the one sets forth the figures on which I based my reports of the surveys. I might explain that I was not appointed to the' 187 office at that time and did not have the regular forms; I did not have the official stationery and so I made up that paper myself. Q.—Yon left this document at the Custom House? A.— Yes. Q.—You left it with Mr. Milne, who was collector of customs? A.—Yes. (Cross-examined by Mr. Dickinson): to Q.—The gross tonnage you put in at 26? A.—Yes. Q.—And you allowed for the poop or cabin 1.36 tons? A. . — Yes. Q.—There was no other closed space in her? A.—None. Q.—That is she had no other enclosed space except the cabin? A.—Y'es, I explained that by explaining the class o business she was in; she was used by pilots. Q.—And the total tonnage, including the cabin is 27.36? A.—Y'es. Q.—And the width you state here of 16 feet is outside of 20 planking, is it not? A.—Yes, it is outside of the planking; it is 16.5 feet. Mr. Dickinson:—I wish to know, Mr. Peters, what papers you are going to put in. Mr. Peters:—The document I propose to put in is the builder's certificate, dated the 10th of April, 1884. I propose to put in a certified copy of that as "exhibit 14, G. B., 'Carolena' case." 3° The examination of the above named witness was closed. Alexander Watson, Jr., of the City of Victoria, ship builder, a witness produced on behalf of Her Majesty, being first duly sworn, testified: Examined by Mr. Bieque: 40 Q-—Mr. Watson, what is your occupation? A.—Shipwright. Q.—How long have you been occupied in that business? A.—Since 1874. Q.—On your own account? A.—No, not lately. Q,.—You were apprenticed to that trade? A.—Yes. Q.—How long have you been working on your own account? A.—1886 was the first job I took on my own account. Q.—Was your father in the same business? A.—Y'es. 50 Q.—And were you working with him for several years? A.—Yes. Q.—I suppose you have a good deal of experience in the value of vessels A.—Well, I have been working at them all that time, it is all the work I have done. Q.—What is the class of vessel that you have constructed principally? A.—Mostly steamers, I have worked on schooners and built schooners. Q.—How many vessels have vou built? A.—Do you mean myself? Q.—Yes, or worked on the building of them? A.—T have worked on vessels of 300 tons. Q.—Did you know the 'Carolena"? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you ever do any work on the "Carolena"? A.— I worked on her once, I think. Q.—When was it? A.—When she was repaired after coming into collision with a steamer coming into Victoria harbor. Ii It I j t; ft ii 30 Q.—For what purpose was she used them? A.—She was a pilot boat I think, but I would not be positive on that. Q.—In what year was it about? A.—1 cannot give it to 3rou exaetlv, but it was about 1882 or 1S83. Q.—Did you see her out of the water then? A.—Yes. Q.—Had you occasion then to see in what condition she was? A.—Yes, we could see pretty well what she was like. Q.—Had 3'ou any occasion to form an opinion as to her value? A.—Well, I could see what the vessel was like, but 10 don't know as I formed any opinion as to her value at that time. Q.—But from the knowledge that you then acquired of the vessel what would 3rou estimate her value to be then? Well, of course the value varies, but I could give you a general valuation; it would be about $4,000, or perhaps a little lower, but somewhere about that. Q.—What do 3tou mean to say when you say that the value varies? A.—The market value I mean. Q.—What was the market value then as compared with 20 what it was in more recent years? A.—In what yea§? Q.—In 18S5 or 1886 as compared to the present time? A.— They were higher then than they are now, that is at. the present day. Q.—How much per cent, about? A.—I guess about 20 per cent. Q.—That is on account of the more expensive material and labor, I suppose? A.—Yes, the material and labor and other matters. Cross-examination by Mr,. Lansing. Q.—Mr. Watson, are you a shipwright now? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And at the time you repaired the "Carolena" in 1882 or 1883 you stated that she had been in a collision? A.—I think so. Q.—With what vessel, do you know? A.—If my memory serves me right it was the "North Pacific." " Q.—Was the schooner sunk? A.—No. Q.—You know that she was not sunk? A.—Well, I do not think so. 40 Q-—Was she badly damaged? A.—Not very badly damaged, but she had her bow knocked out. Q.—Was it in the side? A.—No, in the bow. She ran into the "North Pacific," I believe. I did not see the collision, but I know she was damaged. I did not see it until I worked on the repairs. Q.—Have you worked on other scaling vessels besides the "Carolena?" A.—Yes. Q.—Have vou built any? A.— I have built the hull of one. Q.—What'one'? A.—The "Minnie.'' e0 Q.—When? A.—I started her in 1888 and finished her in 1889. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—I cannot give her tonnage exactly. Q.—Well, about what was it? A.—It was about 48, or somewhere around that; 48 tons, I think. Q.—Did 3'ou work on her or did you build her? A.—I built her in company with another man. Q.—When you were repairing the "Carolena" did you go all through the vessel? A.—Do you mean did I walk through 60 her? Q.—Yes, and examine her? A.—I have been all through her. I did not examine her thoroughly particularly, but I took pieces out of her. Q.—Out of the bow? A.—Yes. Q.—How far back did this injury extend from the bow? A.—The injury did not extend very far, but the repairs extended about 20 feet. We had to go back pretty well; 20 or 30 feet, 20 feet anyhow. Q.—In your examination of her you noticed particularly what she was built of and the condition she was in? A.—1 noticed the pieces I took out of her. Q.—Did you examine the rest of the vessel at all to see her condition? A.—No. Q.—Did you examine her decks? A.—I made no special examination. q.—What did you fix your valuation of $4,000 on? A.—Just on the general value of vessels. 10 Q.—Do you think from your knowledge of the "Carolena" you are able to fix a valuation on that vessel ? . A.—Do you ask me if I think myself competent; if so, that is hardly a question for me to answer. I think I am from my knowledge. Q.—On what knowledge do you base your.opinion? A.—On being around' schooners and working on them. Q.—Did you ever buy a vessel? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you ever sell one? A.—Yes, I sold the one I made under contract. 20 Q.—What did 3'ou sell her for? A.—For about $2,800, the part I made. Q —How much was her entire value? A.—I did not build the whole vessel, but only the bare lower part, without fittings. Q.—You were in partnership with another man on it? A.— O.—How much did you receive? A.—$2,800 for my part. Q.—How much did the other man receive? A.—We received that. 30 Q.—What did the owner do then? A.—The owner finished her, of course. Q._\Yhat did you build of that vessel? A.—I built the bare hull without any fittings and without any iron work. Q.—Y'ou say she was about 60 tons? A.—48 tons, or somewhere about; that is only a guess. Q.—Was that Victor Jacobson's boat? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you build her by registered tonnage or by builder's tonnage? A.—No. q.—On what measurement did you build her? A.—By the 40 length, breadth and depth, by specification. Q.—You built her for a lump sum. A.—Yes, he gave me the length, breadth and depth. Q.—Now to return to the question of your knowledge as to the market value of schooners, what vessels do you know of in 1886 that were sold here? A.—There was no sale to my own personal knowledge, ? Q.—In 1885 what vessels were sold here? A.—I do not know. 0.—In 1884 what vessels were sold here? A.—I do not 50 know of any. I was not in that business. Q.—And in 1887? A.—No. Q.—How do you know what the "Carolena" would have sold for? A.—I do not know what she would have sold for. Q.—How do you know how much she was worth? A.—I gave my opinion of her value. q,—How could you form an opinion of her value when 3'ou don't know what ihe' market price was? A.—I could tell by what I heard of vessels; it was only hearstrv, of course, go q.—y0u can state what (hey cost to build? A.—Yes. Q.—That is your own opinion? A.—Y'es. Q.—Y'ou do not know of a single sale of a vessel in these years? A.—No, there might have been sales but I don't know anything about them. Q.—Do 3'ou know eif Hi vessels built from 18S4 to 1887 inclusive? A.—Yes, I think there were some vessels built in that time. p?W&*r"~ L UEiii O— What ones? A.—I would not be positive as to their names, but I think the "Grade" and the "Sayward" were built then. , „ , „ , i „ Q._The -Cracie was built before that? A.—IVrhaps she was but I cannot say. ,„,•„„ Q—Do you know of anv bids being made for sealing vessels in that time? A-Not positively; I may have been giving bids myself but I could not be certain. Q_y0u have no recollection of any being made.' A.—1 to would not swear to it. q _a nd your knowledge is the knowledge of what it would cost to build that vessel? A.—Yes, I know what it would cost, to build her. a _What would it have cost to have built a vessel like the "Carolena" in 1886? A.—Y'ou would have to give me the specifications of the "Carolena" before I could tell that ex- BHI you know how long the "Carolena" was? A..—No. (j.—T)0 vou know her breadth? A.—No. Q._Do you know her depth of hold? A.—No. 2U Q._Do you know anything about her in particular.' A.— I have seen her but I did not measure her. q._How could you fix 3'our valuation, then? A.—I mean her tonnage. w-S j T WM±£&a Q—What was her tonnage? A.—35 tons, as I understand Q— How much did it cost to build (his 35 ton registered tonnage vessel? A.—About '3900 odd dollars. Q._Was that in 1886? A.-Yes. The average vessel might run higher and they might run lower; it all depends on in the class of vessel. > ., 3 Q—And if she was only 27 tons register, what would you say she was worth? A.—She would be worth lower. Q—And if vou were told the "Carolena" was 27 tons register, What would you say her value was then? A.—I would have to figure that out. . . , „ « ?_l X «— irniin ft-mn /YrYITTI ATI figure that out. ; . ell figure it out, on your own opinion. q. well, ngure it out, on yuui uvm ^u^^^- The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—There must be some mistake about that. I notice the surveyor says she was 27 tons and the register says she was 31 tons. 40 Mr. Peters:—I think we should recall Mr. Walker as to that; the old registry was wrong and he reduced her. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Mr Walker said here that she was.27 tons, and it struck me as strange that after they had lengthened her she should be less than she was before. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing continued: Q.—How much do you say the value would be? A.— $3,375; that is, allowing she was a good average vessel. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Did you figure on the registered tonnage? A.—Yes, the registered. (By Mr. Lansing): Q.—That is what it would cost to build a vessel of that size in 1886? A.—Yes, an average vessel. 60 Re-examined by Mr. Bieque: Q.—That is if you figured on 27 tons registry, as you have mentioned? A.—Yes. q_Do you sav that would have been the cost in I086, 01 to-day? A.—That would have been the cost in 1886. O—It would have been the cost in 18S6? A.—Yes. 0 _You have been asked as to the "Minnie. Do you know what she cost her owner when she was finished? A.—-No, 1 do not know exactly what she cost him. This closed the examination of the witness. 30 10 Samuel McCullough Smith, of the city of Victoria, a witness produced on behalf of Her Majesty, was duly sworn. Examined by Mr. Peters: Q.—Where do you reside, Mr. Smith? A.—In Victoria. Q.—I believe you have been in the ship-building business for a long time? A.—For a number of years. Q.—For how many years? A.—35 years. Q.—Where did you begin to work in ships? A.—At Mait- land, Nova Scotia. 20 Q.—That is where all the good shipbuilders come from. I believe you had quite a long experience in Nova Scotia? A. —Yes, I had a long experience. Q.—You were a master shipbuilder in Nova Scotia, were you? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—For how many years before you left there? A.—For a good many years. Q.—You built some ships before you left there? A.—I believe four ships as master builder. ii.—I believe they were large ships? From 500 to about 1,000 tons. Q.—When you left Nova Scotia did you come here direct? A.—I came here direct. Q.—That is how many years ago? A.—I came here in 1876. Q.—And since you have been here have you been building ships also? A.—Mostly altogether. Q.—Were you in partnership in the business with.any one else in this country? A.—Yres, sir. 40 Q-—Who were you in partnership with? A.—Well, first to a small extent I did some work with Mr. Turpel. Later on I was in business with Mr. Warner. Q.—Are you now engaged in ship-building? A.—I am now engaged as Superintendent of the Marine Railway at Esquimalt. Q.—How long have you been engaged in that? A.—Something more than a year. Q.—Since you have been in Victoria have you actually built sealing schooners? A.—I have. 50 Q.—I do not wish to go into the nature of the- vessels in dispute, so I will take the names of the vesels you have built. Did you build the Dolphin? ' A.—I built the Dolphin as master workman. Q.—You were superintendent of the building of the Dolphin? A.—Yes. Q.—Did 3rou build the Sea Lion? A.—I did as master workman and contractor. Q.—Did you build the "Charlotte Cox"? A.—Y'es, partly, as master workman. 60 Q. Did vou build the "Barbara Boscowitz"? A.—I built the."Barbara Boscowitz" as master workman. Q.—Did you build erther vessels? A.—I built steamboats; that is all the sealing vessels I remember that I built. Q.—Generally speaking you have had experience in Nova Scotia and Victoria in building vessels? A.—Yes. Q.—Generally speaking I want to ask you, how does the expense of building a ship in Nova Scotia compare with I 192 building her here? Is it much greater here, or is it less in Nova Scotia? A.—It is much less in Nova Scotia. Q.—Take one item only, the question of wages; what are the ordinary wages of ship carpenters in Nova Scotia? A.— In NovaiaKptia we pay them about $1.60 per day. Q.—And what is the ordinary wages you pay here? A.— At present it is $3.50. Q.—And going back ten years ago what was it? A.--$4.0° Q.—So that of itself, must make a large difference in the 10 price of a .vessel, it would make a vessel built in Victoria much dearer than a vessel built in NoAra Scotia? A.—Yes. Q.—The price of lumber is very much higher here than it is in Nova Scotia I suppose? A.—Yes, much higher in Victoria. Q.—Is there much difference in the price? A.—In general lumber in the east costs about $8.00 per thousand feet, as far as I remember; and here it costs perhaps $16.00 I speak of course from memory. We used to' buy our lumber in Nova Scotia by the ton, and it cost about $3.00 per ton, 20 timber measurement. Q.—And here it would cost you about double that? A.— Here we buy it by the thousand. Mr. Dickinson:—Are you speaking of 25 years ago when you refer to' this matter? A.—I am speaking of when I lived there>' and I know nothing about it since. By Mr. Peters. Q— You know this, Mr. Smith, that at the present time you can buy these schooners cheaper in Nova Scotia than you can here; is not that a fact? A.—Yes, 30 Sir. Q.—And that as a fact in 1886 and 1887 this was also the e-ase? A.—Yes, so far as 1 know. Q.—You are aware of the fact that a large number of schooners have been imported from Nova Scotia here for the purpose of seal fishing? A.—I am. Q.—Quite a large proportion of the sealing fleet are Nova " Scotia.' vessels, are they not? A.—Large proportion. Q.—Are there not American built vessels also trading here? 40 A.-^-I think there are some American built vessels. Q.—And some also frcm Japan? A.—Yes. Q.—Now. .Mr. Smith, I believe you know a good many of the vessels of the sealing fleet? A.—I do. Q.—And amongst others you have seen the "Carolena?" A.—I have seen the "Carolena," no doiibt. I know her by name, but I never had anything to do on or about the "Carolena;" and individually, as a vessel, I do not know anything about her in detail. Q.—Do you know enough about her to value her? A.— 50 Not on her particular merits; only so far as my knowledge goes on vessels generally. Q.—Your knowledge of the value of vessels has been large,- and if a vessel of the size of the "Carolena" was offered for $4,000 in 1886, what would you say? Mr. Dickinson:—Are 3'ou going into this kind of evidence? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Certainly; it is perfectly relevant. (To witness): I ask 3'ou what was she worth in 1886? A.— 60 What was the tonnage? Q.—The tcnnage is in dispute. It was about 31 tons. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not want to take up any time, but my conscience pricks me when I hear incompetent testimony given in without my making objection. I have endeavoured to keep quiet under the peculiar circumstances under which this testimony has been given in. It does seem to me that 20 30 4Q 50 6o 193 this is going a little beyond what could by the wildest stretch of imagiation be called relevant testimony. The witness states himself that he knows nothing about the value of the "Carolena" whatever, and would not know her by sight unless he read her name. How can he be examined as to her value? Mr. Peters:—The witness, in the first place, has been in court and heard the' evidence given with respect to the "Carolena" and her description. (To witness) Y'ou were present in Court here and heard the "Carolena" described by the different witnesses, were you not? A.—Yes. I have heard the evidence. Mr. Dickinson:—Then we are entitled to have the hypothesis put to the witness. (Examination continued by Mr. Peters): Q.—From your knowledge of the values of vessels about 1886 in this country, and taking a vessel of about 30 tons, of the description you have heard here of the "Carolena" from Mr. Robinson and other witnesses about what she would be worth if sold at that time? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—A number of other things would enter into the computation. Mr. Peters:—Certainly. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—And these matters should be in the mind of the witness. Mr. Peters:—Certainly. (By Mr. Peters): (To witness): Q.—You have heard the vessel described as being repaired in 1884? A.—Y'es. Q.—You heard that described by Mr. Robinson, a witness here? A.—Yes. Q.—Having heard that, and assuming the "Carohma" to be somewhere about 30 tons, I ask you if she were offered for sale in 1886 for a sealing vessel, in your opinion what would she have brought? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest\':—Assumin Mr. Robinson's testimony to be corree-t Mr. Peters:—Certainly. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I Ihin you should put that in the question. Q.—rWell, 3'ou have heard Mr. Robinson's evidence as to the general condition the vessel was in, and can you state; from that, assuming it was correct, what her value was? A.—I have not heard from the evidence yet whether she was a metal-fastened vessel. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Peters, do you think you can gain anything by giving evidence of this kind? Do you think it will impress the Commissioners at all, even if you get it? Mr. Peters:—I hope it will have some effect, your Honour. Here is a man engaged 35 years in this particular business, a man of large experience, and I do not think I could get. much better evidence. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— There is no question about his competency if he saw this vessel. If you put a hypothetical question like that, you might do as a friend of mine did, sit up all night to form a hypothet- 13 194 ical question, and tlu'n have it ruled out of court the first thing in the morning. The witness at once suggests the difficulty by his answer. Mr. Peters:—I have now the actual measurements of Mr. Walker's survey, made on the 10th day of April, 1884 It was mislaid when Mr. Walker was under examination. (To witness): Q.—Take the communication of Mr. Walker's certificate of survey now in your hands, and assuming it to 10 be a correct certificate of her measurement, what would you say as to her value at that time? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Does that state her age and the fact that she was repaired in 1884? Mr. Peters:—That is stated on the certificate, I understand. The Witness:—I am not able to give the value of that vessel of my own knowledge. I cannot by any means make it out even satisfactory to myself. I never saw her, but I imag- 20 ine the vessel would be worth about $3,600 or $3,700, or something about that. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What is that paper, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—When this vessel was lengthened it was supposed to change her tonnage. There was then a survey made to have a proper entry made in the registry of the ship. When this re-measurement was made it was found that there must have been some error in her original measurements. I 3° do not know how it occurred. This certificate of Mr. Walk er's was filed in the Customs House. This is the survey on which it was intended to base the correction on the register. This is the original document which was filed there. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Did you get it from the custom house? Mr. Bodwell:—It comes from the collector's office here, and by reason of the fact that her measurement was not increased .q no change was made in the registry. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Will you please read the length, breadth, depth, tonnage and age* of the "Carolena," as shown on that paper? Mr. Peters:—She is described here as the schooner Carolena, a British sailing vessel, rebuilt in 1884 at Victoria, B.C. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Does it state where she was built? A.—It does not state where 50 she was built. It gives John J. Robinson, of Victoria, as the re-builder. Then gives the number of masts ana how she is rigged; one cabin, deck, two masts, schooner, stem elliptic, framework wood, lengtjg55 8-10 feet, breadth 16 5-10 feet, depth 5 5-10 feet; particulates of tonnage: gross tonnage, "6; poop or cabin, 1.36j tetal, 27.36. Mr. Walker then certifies to these and states that the schooner is properly marked, the place where she is registered marked plainly on her stern, and that everything is in accordance with the Merchants Shipping Act. Annexed to that document are the figures £,. upon which the measurements are made up. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Does your question to the witness fairly state the case? Does your epiestion state that she was rebuilt here and built in the Territory of Washington as long as 26 or 27 years ago? Should not those go in to a hypothetical question to the witness? '95 Mr. Peters:—I understood that the date of her building was in the certificate. We contend that she was practically rebuilt in 1884, practically making her a new ship. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I call j-our attention to these facts so that you will be able to judge whether your examination so far will have any weight on the minds of the Court. . Mr. Peters:—It is open to that remark. (To the witness): Q.—You have no interest, I believe, in these claims? A.— No. The further examination of the witness was postponed. The Commissioner on the part of the United States;—At Judge King's request I will state on behalf of the Commissioners that we will sit to-morrow until 1 o'clock, and not resume in the afternoon. This will give the clerks an opportunity of clearing up the work. 20 The Commissioners then rose. 10 30 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America- Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Viertoria, December 5, 1896. At 10:30 a. m., the Commisioners took their seats. The examination of the witness Samuel McCullough Smith was resumed. Mr. Dickinson declared that he had no cross-examination to make. 40 The examination of the witness closed. Mr. Peters:—A few days ago Mr. Munsie was cross-examined by Mr. Dickinson, and in the course of his cross- examination Mr. Dickinson asked him with regard to the original articles of partnership between Mr. Carne and Mr. Munsie. We have found the articles of pan nership. and I now hand them to my learned friend for his examination. Mr. Munsie is here, if Mr. Dickinson wants to ask him about them. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not think I' asked the witnes about 5° that. I gave you a notice and you thought you did not have them. Mr. Peters:—That was a written notice that my learned friend gave me; and T answered that I thought it was in Mr. Munsie's possession. But in the course of examination he was asked with regard to the articles of partnership. 60 Mr. Dickinson:—Not by me. Mr. Peters:—If you do not want them it is all right. Orlando Warner, of the city of Victoria, a witness produced on behalf of Her Majesty, was duly sworn. Q.—Mr. Warner, will you tell me where you reside? A.— In Victoria. Q.—How long have you been in Victoria? A.—25 ye'ars. Q.—What is your occupation? A.—Shipwright. Q.—How long have you been in that business? A.— 31 3'ears or 32 years. Q.—Where did yon begin that business? A.—In Pug- wash, Cumberland county, Nova Scotia. Q.—Were you employed as a master builder there? A.— No, I was a journe3Tnan. Q.—After you left Nova Scotia did you come directly lere? A.—No, sir, I stopped in San Francisco one year. Q—Did you follow the shipwright business there.' A.— 7<o, sir, I had nothing to do with it there Q.—You came to Victoria some 25 years ago I think? A. Yes. Q.—Since that time have you been occupied in the ship- 20 wright business? -V.—More or less, whenever there was anything in the town to do in that business. Q.—Were yon connected with Mr. Smith who gave evidence here yesterday. A.—We were partners in the Star shipyard. Q.—You owned a shipyard called the Star Shipyard, and 3'ou were partners in that business? A.—Yes. Q.—For how long? A.—We were partners for four years about. Q.—Did you own other ship yards besides that one? A. ,Q —Only that one. Q.—During your experience as a shipwright, have you worked in connection with the building or repairing of many sealing vessels? A.—I have worked in the construction of three. Q.—Just name them, please. A.—There is the "Charlotte Cox," the "Diana," and the "Dolphin." -Q.—You were working on the construction of the "Charlotte Cox?" A.—I was the contractor for her. Q.—Y'ou were the contractor for the building of the "Di- .0 ana?" A.—Y'es, I had the contract. 4 Q.—When did you build her? A.—In the spring of 1891. I think it wag;in Feb., 1891, if I remember right. Q.—What tonnages was she? A.—She was 83 tons, I believe. Q.—And you had the contract for doing what on her? A. —I had the contract of the hull and spars, without doing any of the cabin work or the fort^tstle; and I had to furnish no steering gear. I furnished her with one top mast, but not a fore-top mast. The main top mast I had to furnish, and cq I laid the spars alongside her afloat in the harbor. Q.—That is, you had not to place llllspars? A.—No, sir. Q.—What was the price for that work? A.—I took the contract at $5,600, a lump sum. Q.—Was that a good contract or a bad contract? A.— Well, it was nothing to brag of. I made notlfitg on it. Q.—The whole of Ihe finishing had to be done afterwards? A.—It was done' afterwards by the owneu's. Q.—Her sails and rigging and evendhing else complete? A.—I did not furnish any sails or rigging of any description. f It is generally termed hull and spars, with this little special provision that Ihe owners thought they would get some new arrangement for a steering gear, and it was left for them to provide. Q.—I need hardly ask you whether the additional work 1hat had to be done to that ship before she would be fit to go to sea would cost a considerable «nm? A.—My impression is that it would cost considerable. 197 Q.—Can you give me an idea of what it would cost, comparing it with the cost of the work you did? A.—As I have been used to figuring on vessels, we call the hull and spars, two- thirds about of the cost of a vessel ready for sea, not fitted out for the sealing business, but for ordinary purpe>ses. Q.—And that was in what year? A.—That was in the winter of 1890 and the spring of 1891. Q.—I am not going to ask you as to the "Dolphin" because she is in dispute here; but let me ask you: Did you know the jo "Carolena"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you ever do any work on the "Carolena"? A.—1 did a little. Q.—Do you remember what time it was when yon did that work? A.—I do not say anything with regard to the "Carolena," is is so long ago. Q.—Can you tell me who was the owner of the "Carolena" then? A.—I cannot swear to it, but my impression is that she was owned by the Pilot Board at the time. Q.—Was that the same occasion that Mr. Smith spoke 20 about? Were you with Mr. Smith when that work was done? A.—No, I was on my own account at the time, working around as a journeyman. Q.—Had you seen the "Carolena" in 1886 or about that time? A.—I have no direct recollection of having seen her in 1886. I have seen the vessel off and on, with the others as they come and go; but I would not swear to particular dates as to just when I saw her. Q.—Do you know as a matter of fact about her being lengthened at one time? A.—I knew that she was hauled out 30 and lengthened. Q.—Did 3'ou happen to see her when she was being lengthened? I have no recollection. I was not working on her, and consequently did not go near her to my knowledge. Q;.—Did you see her after she had been lengthened? A.—• Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know enough about her to be able to give an idea of what she was worth? A.—I could give what my own idea is of what I would be willing to proeMce her for. Q.—What would you say she would be worth after she was 40 lengthened? A.—From what I know of the "Carolena" after she was lengthened I would not undertake to construct her hull and spars— The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Please answer the question, witness. By Mr. Peters:—Q.—What do you think she was worth then ? A.—Am I to understand, with her reaely for sea ? Q.—Yes. -V.— The vessel would be worth in my estimation $3,800 or $4,000, just about there. Q-—How was she with regard to sailing? A.—I understood her to be a ver3' fair sailer. Q.—You do not pretend to speak anything about the sea ing outfit? A.—No, sir. Q.—Y'ou spoke of another vessel besiele the "Charlotte Cox"? A.—Yes, the "Diana." Q.—Was she a sealer? A.—Yes. Q.—What tonnage was she? A.—I think her lonnage was about 53 tons or 56 tons, somewhere around there, but I am qq not positive as to her tonnage. i).—What did 3-ou have to do wilh Iht? A.—T was one of the parties in the contract on her. Q.—When was that, or about when? A.—That would bf about 18*9 or 1890. Mv impression is we launched her in 1890. Q.—Did you have any interest in that ship? A.—None whatever than working on her. Q.—Who did you build her for? A.—Geo. Collins. 50 Q.—You had a contract to build her? A.—We had to a certain extent. Q.—What part of her did you have to do with? A.—We constructed the hull and furnished the spars, with the exception that we furnished no iron work for the vessel, or did none of the deck furnishings, such as galley, cabin, or forecastle, or any of the interior arrangements. What I mean by the iron work, is the iron work required for. the rigging, and chain tights and such things as come from a blacksmith io shop. Q.—What was the contract for? A.—The contract for her was $2,800. ii.—You had nothing to do with the sails or rigging on her? A.—None whatever. Q.—Nor the anchors nor chains? A.—Nothing. Q.—Y'ou had nothing to do with the finishing inside? A.— Nothing whatever. Q.—You sealed her? A.—Certainly, we finished the hull. We sealed the vessel, and weighted the decks. 20 Q.—How was it with regard to the building of ships in 1890 compared with say from 1884 to 1886? Was it less expensive or more expensive? A.—Well, my impression is that there would be about a i>ar. If anything I think that in 1884, 1885 and 1886 things we:re a little more expensive, but never haying built any in that time I cannot tell. Q.—Of what material were you in the habit of building Ihese vessels? A.—Hard Douglas fir. Q.—Is that, considered to be a good material? A.—Good material. 30 Q.—Could you in this part of the country get any better? . A.—I know of no better without it would be yellow cedar; but it is a very scarce, timber, and not generally used. Q.—Is yellow cedar more expensive? A.—It is more expensive. Q.—Praetically speaking, is it obtainable in large quantities? A.—Well, I am not prepared to judge of that as it comes from the northern portion of the countiy, and I never travelled through it enough to know. All I know is that there was one vessel built nearly chiefly of it up at Port Es- 40 sington. I have never see any large quantities of it brought to this market. Q.—What do you make the stem, stern-posts, and things of that description out of? A.—It is usual, if you can get a good fir crook to make the stem. The stern post and rudder stick are generally of oak. Q.—Do you know anything of what you call Oregon pine? A.—I have seen some of it, sir. Q.—How does Oregon Pine compare with Douglas fir? A.— I would consider them on a par. 50 Q.—Are they or are. they not a different class of wood? A. —My impression has always been that they are of the same character of timber. With regard to the amount you have to pay workmen in building these vessels, what is the usual wages you give a good ordinary ship carpenter? A.—I pay $4 a day for new work, and $5 on old. Q.—Is that the usual price, or is it unusual? A.—That was the usual figure of the port. Q.—At the present time, is the cost of building a schooner 60 here greater or less than it was, say in 1886, has the price decreased or ine-reased? A.—It has decreased. You could build a vessel to-day much cheaper than you coulel in 1891, even. Q.—What is the reason for that? A.—My idea of the reason of it is the increased depression of times generally. Q.—Without going into a generality of that description, take the matter of lumber, and tell me if lumber is cheaper or dearer now? A.—Cheaper. IO 20 30 40 199 Q.—Is it notably cheaper? A.—Notably so. I consider it 10 per cent, at all events cheaper. Q.—And the iron that you have to use—take spikes, for instance, are they dearer or cannot say that there is any material difference in the galvanized spikes; they charge about $7 a keg for them ever since I can remember. Q.—Iron work is generally cheaper now? A.—Blacksmith's work cannot be done for less, and an3'thing that has labor attached to it. Q.—For several reasons, whatever they may be, you can build cheaper now than you could in 1886? A.—Considerably so. There is a bill'of lumber for 1891 for 2,000 feet at $22.70, and I cfluld get it to-day for $15. Cross-examjnation by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—What ship did you build in 1886? A.—I did not any. A.—None. A.—None. A.—None. A.—None, did you aid in building in 1884, 1885 1887 and 1888? A.—In the construction? ' Q.—Yes. A.—I think the "Dolphin" was built then, do not recollect the building of her as to the date. Q.—Only the "Dolphin"? A.—I do not recollect for certain if she was built in these years or not. Q.—You took part in building her? A.—Yes. Q.—Is the "Dolphin" the only ship—if she was built in these years, which I believe she was not—Did you build any ships except the "Dolphin," or take part in the building of any ships in 1884, 1885, 1886, 1887 or 1888? A.—None of a sea ing character. Q.—Then your comparisons have been made on the difference between prices in 1890 and 1891, and prices at the present time, have they not? A.—To a certain extent, and also of my knowledge of the wages that existed prior to then. Q.—Did you know anything about the wages for building vessels in 1886? A.—Our wages were always the standard of $5 on old work and $4 on new. Q.—They are now, are they not? A.—They are not now. Q.—What are they now? A.—The wages of the port to- 5° 60 Q.—In 1884? Q.—In 1885? Q.—In 1887? Q.—In 1888? Q.—What ship dav is $3.50 on new and $4 on old. Q.—Has that come about since the de-pression yon have re ferred to? A.—It has. Q.—What were the wages in 1890 and 1891? A.—The wages in 1890 and 1891 were $4 and $5 Q.—They had not changed then since 1886? A.—No, si Q.—And the material has cheapened since the depression came on? A.Yes, sir. Q.—When did the depression come on in your view? A.— 'When I speak of the depression of business I speak of it belonging to my own-craft, and I wish that to be understood. Well, the depression struck us about four years ago. Q.—About the time it struck the rest of us in other crafts, probably? A.—Very likely. Q.—Let us see. Were you ever on the "Carolena"? A.—I have been on board her. Q.—Except this time when you repaired her? A.—On and off, but I do not recollect any particular circumstance. Q.—You do not recollect any particular time when you were on board her? A.—No, sir. Q.—But you have been on her more or less? A.—Yes, off and on. Q.—Now, when you put her price at $3,800, or $4,000, are 3'ou thinking of what it would cost to build her? A.—Tha' is mv idea, ves, sir. 200 Q.—To build her new? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you base your estimate on that? A.—Yes. Q.—And to build her right now? A.—Y'es. Q.—Now, you built the "Charlotte Cox" of 83 tons at $5,600 with her spars and rigging? A.—Y'es, sir. spars but not her rigging. Q.—Y'ou furnished the spars? A.—All but the fore-top mast. Q.—And you estimate that that $5,6°0 is about two-thirds io of the cost to equip her for sea? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—So that you would have to add to the $5,600 about $1,860 for the rest of the equipment? A.—I do not wish to be misunderstood. Q.—I do not wish you to be misunderstood above all things. A.—Well, in the 'Charlotte Cox" I tried to specify it in the contract as plain as possible; it was to complete hull and spars. Q.—You said that your contract price was $5,000 for what you did on the "Charlotte Cox?" A.—Yes, sir. 20 Q.—Did you also state that you usually estimated tiiat that would be two thirds of the cost of equipping her for sea? A.—Yes, sir that would be after you completed the hull. Q.—Then what would be your total estimate of the cost of equipping the "Charlotte Cox" for sea? A.—Are you speaking of it to-day? Q.—No, no, when yon built her. A.—But. a burned child dreads the fire. ~Q Q.—Never mind that. After you built her for $5,600 what is your estimate of the total cost of equipping her for sea? I am not going into your private business, and I don't want you to. 1 want you to estimate on the testimony you have given? A.—Well, taking my first contract at $5,600, $2,800 would be the next added, that would be another one- third. Q.—You are a shipwright and not a mathematician, and L think that we can figure that out for ourselves. Now, was that about the same thing in regard to the "Diana," did you 40 do her in about the same way? A.—No, sir. Q.—What did you put on the "Charlotte Cox" that you did not put on the "Diana?" A.—I furnished the iron work except her steering gear. Q.—And what was that added to cost? A.—It would be in the neighborhood on the "Diana" of $250. Q.—More. A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is what 3'ou did not furnish? A.—Y'es, then there would be fifty dollars for the windlass that we did not furnish. 50 Q.—What else? A.—Hawse pipes. Q.—How much for that? A.—I do not want to swear about the Albion Iron Works prices, they go by weights, one set of hawse pipes will perhaps weigh more than another and cost more, and I would not like to be positive or swear to what the hawse pipes would cost. Q.—Well, give us a maximum and a minimum price? A. —I would judge- it would be in the neighborhood of $10 or $15- Q.—That would not hurt us. What else was there on the 60 "Diana" that you diel not furnish. A.—We did not furnish her copper fastenings. Q.—Was she subsequently copper fastened. A.—She was copper fastened before she was iaunched. Q.—What was the cost of that? A.—The copper was furnished and cost the owner, I believe, $100. Q.—Was there something else that you did not furnish to equip her for sea? A.—We did not furnish her in cabin, forecastle or galley. 201 Q.—Did you furnish the companion way to go to the cabin? A.—No, sir. Q.—That had to be cut in her deck? A.—No. Q.—Did you leave a hole for it? A.—Certainly. Q.—What would be the cost of completing ihe forecastle and cabin to equip her for sea? A.—A good deal of that would depend on the style that they fitted her up in. Q.Well, the style in which you built the ship, if you were to furnish it 3'ourseIf? A.—You want me to giv-S my rc'ea io as to what it would cost to finish up her cabin, and forecastle and galley? A.—I would not undertake it for less than $500 or $600. Q.—You wotuil make money on that, would you not? A. —I might, and I might get nipped. Q.—You do not mean to say that your estimates are so wide of the mark that you cannot tell whether they are within the cost or on the outside of it, do you, in the case of all your estimates? A.—The estimate on the vessel at first cost was below the mark. 20 Q-—Below the mark? A.—Below the mark. Q.—Then you are accustomed to build vessels in that way, you built the "Cox" below the mark and then built the> "Diana" below the mark? A.—There is an explanation that can be given. Q.—Never mind your explanation now. Mr. Peters:—The witness wishes to give an explanation go Mr. Dickinson:—You can get that explanation from him when I am through with my examination. (To witness.) Q.—Were these two vessels built below the mark Certain. Q.—And you say you got left both times? A.—Both times. Q.—Did you get left on the "Dolphin"? A.—I got my money every Saturday on her. Q.—You were-doing journeyman's work then? A.—Yes; Q.-r—The "Diana" that you have testified to was built in the 40 winter-of 1889 and 1890? A.—I am speaking from memory, and I think that is the time. Q.—That was before the depression had struck and when you were paying $4 and $5 a day? A.—It was. Q.—And that was the time the material was all up? A.— That was the time. Q.—Now, in 1884, 1885 and 1886 were there any sealing vessels built here? A.—They have been so scattered through that I cannot swear to dates as to when the vessels were built. 50 Q.—Well, before you yourself began to build there was not A.—Not a great Scotia largely and from San much building of sealing vessels here deah Q.:—They came from Nova Frandsco? A.—Usually, yes. Q.-^—.The ship chandlery stores were not equipped with material to build? A.—They were, yes, sir. Q.—In 188.4, 1885, and 1886? A.—They carried good stock. Q.—And an abundance of it? A.—All that was required as far as my recollection goes. 60 Q.—There was no difficulty in getting all the material you needed in 1884, 1885 and 1886? A.—I knew of none. Q.—You had no more difficulty then than you did in 1890 when you built the "Diana"? A.—No more difficulty any further than that things were a trifle higher. q.—when they were a trifle higher in 1884, 1885 and 1886, did you buy an3' for that purpose? A.—No, I know no more than of the reports that were given, for as I said I built no vessels then. 202 IO 20 30 Q.—You did not know anything about the building of this class of sealing vessels in these days? A.—I knew nothing as to their absolute cost further than the experience of working on the vessels would lead ine to know. Q.—I think I got an answer to a question from you, that in 1884, 1885 and 1886 before you built the "Diana" in 1.889 or 1890, four or five years before 3tou built the "Diana," the sealing ships were usually brought here from San Francisco or Nova Scotia. They were built elsewhere than in Victoria usuall3', were they hot? A.—It is pretty hard for me to tell just when the first vessel came around here from Nova Scotia, whether it is as far back as 1886 or not I would not like to say. Q.—But you were a shipwright here and knew what was going on pretty well in the business of ship building? A.— A general idea, yes, sir. Q.—There not being much building going on of sealing vessels in 1884,1885 and 1886. A.—No, sir. Q.—Where did the sealing vessels come from if they were not built here? A.—Well, we all know that the majority of them have come from the East and some from San Francisco. Q.—The market then was of ships that were brought here, whatever market there was? A.—The most of it, yes, sir. Q.—You were here yesterday? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you heard the other shipwrights testify? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And 3'ou heard the testimony to-da3'? A.—Yes, sir, most of it. Q.—And 3'ou sat with your fellow shipwrights here? A.— I sat alongside of one of them most of the time, I belie-ve. Q.—And you heard the general run of the testinony as to the "Carolena" being worth from $3,800 to $4,000?" A.—1; did. Re-examination by Mr. Peters: 5o Q.—You were asked by Mr. Dickinson as to whether in 1884, 1885, 1886 and 1887 you had built any sealing vessels and you answered "no." During these years you were em- 4° ployed in ship work? A.—I was, sir. Q.—And on vessels? A.—On vessels. Q.—What class of vessels? A.—They would be our general run of steamers, and as a schooner came along. Q.—In these years had you much to do with steamers? A. —Y'es, sir, more or less. Q.—So that as a fact during these years you were working at ships? A.—Working at my trade, yes, sir. Q.—When you were being examined by Mr. Dickinson as to the statement that you had not made money on the contracts of the "Carlotta Cox" and the "Diana" you ■ said you had some explanation to give, would you kindly make that explanation? A.—The explanation that I have to give with regard to the "Diana" being built as cheaply as she was, was this: We were running a repairing yard at the time, and had a set of ways in the Star shipyard, and we allowed if we took the schooner while there was nothing else going on, three of us being partners, and we had plenty of time to do it; we could build her considerably cheaper and it would give us an idea and keep us employed. That was the chief object of taking the vessel at the time we did. When we rated her as being built cheaper than at the regular wages, which was then four dollars a day, we considered that we could take three dollars a day out of her and build her in our slack time, and that it would be better for us to work at home and do it, than go away. That was the idea we took to keep our own business in our own yard. 60 10 20 203 Q.—Did the idea turn out successful^', so far as the money part is concerned? A.—Well, I would not try it again. Q.—You were asked by Mr. Dickinson as to whether you had been here 3~esterday and heard the statement of A'our brother shipwrights. As a matter of fact, did 3011 form the opinion you have given here to-day from what you heard, or on what you knew before? A.—Not one word from what I heard. As far as my judgment goes T de> not think I was influenced by anything I heard yesterda3*. Q.—-Your statement is your own individual opinion? A. —My own opinion in my own mind? Q.—You were asked whether a good nnmbcc of these schooners did not come from Nova Scotia and San Francisco, have you any idea as to where the m >st of them came from in 1884 or 1885, whether from Nova Scotia or from San Francisco? A.—The most of our sealing fleet that has been imported, I understand, is from the East; Nova Scotia is, 1 think, the chief place they come from. Q.—Were there many more from Nova Scotia than from San Francisco? A.—I should think a great many more. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Now, you are testifying, you understand, to the year 1886 at the latest. Can you name me a single ship that is in the sealing fleet that came to this port from Nova Scotia, prior to or during the year 1886? A.—I think I said, before sir, that I did not like to confine myself to dates at all. as it was not my business to keep a record of them. Q-—Will you swear to a single ship that was afterwards in the sealing fleet, or was then in the sealing fleet that came to this port from Nova Scotia, prior to or during the year ?S86? A.—I would not swear to one of them. I would not swear there was ever one came from there, for I never saw her leave there and get here. Mr. Peters:—It docs appear to me that there should be some limit to the number of times my learned friend should cross-examine. This is 1 matter he cross-examined on be- 40 fore, and I simply re-examined the witness on it. Mr. Dickinson:—But you have gone into the question of the great majority of these schooners coming from Nova Scotia, and I' have the right to inquire about that. Mr. Peters:—I simply re-examined on the point raised by yourself. Mr. Dickinson:—And I want to see what the witness knows about if. I have a perfect right to cross-examine him on your reexamination, and with all due | deference I think I am entifleel to a ruling on that point. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—For my part I do not remember the examination fully. Mr. Dickinson:—This is as regards the Nova Scotia fleet and my learned friend has called up a new'faft: that the great majority of these vessels came from Nova Scotia. 30 50 60 Mr. Pete -That came out in your own examination. Mr. Dickinson:—Now, if my learned friend is going to be technical as to the introduction of testimony, what shall we say of this mass of testimony that has been put in by him in this case from start to finish. If he is going to insist that the evidence should be conducted in accordance with the rules of common law of the United States and of Great Britain, I accept the issue, and I shall use my privilege of objecting to incompetent testimony from this time out, if my learned friend desires to adopt that rule. 204 ■'■:■; Mr. Peters:—We are not aware of what has been stated by my learned friend, that a lot of irrelevant testimony has been put in. It is quite open for my friend to object to any evidence that we may tender at any time during the course of the investigation? We have no objection to his arguing the point, and when he does argue it we shall attempt, as well as we can, to answer his objection. This witness has been examined on a certain point, and cross-examined on that point. He was cross-examined with regard to a certain 10 other point, and T took the liberty of re-examining him on that point, and both in accordance with the rules of common law, and in accordance with the rules of ever3* court, I had a perfect right to do that. I do not wish to be considered as raising unnecessary objections, and I have no intention of doing so. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The Commisioners do not remember; I do not at any rate remember the entire examination sufficiently to make 20 a ruling upon a question of this sort, which, of course, is left entirely to the elescretion of the court. This is not a question of the admissability of evidence, but it is a question of procedure. Heretofore we have allowed counsel to determine the evidence for themselves, on account of the necessity which the Treaty imposes upon the commissioners. Judge King and myself agree that upon the whole we will allow Mr. Dickinson to put the question, although, I think the witness stated twice already that he did not remember any of these dates; perhaps on 3'our re-direct examination, Mr. Pet- 3° ers, he rather thought he did recollect some dates. Dickinson:—Yes, and fixed the dates The Commissioner on the part of the United States: —Judge King and myself agree to allow the question to be put. Mr. Dickinson:—I wish to. say one word on the general subject in reply to my learned friend on the other side. I understood in the discussion of the rules upon which we formally 40 agreed in order to sink our differences and save time, that.we would not adopt the s&ict rules of the common law, and even if we had agreed to do so, we doubted whether the learned Commissioners would accept any such rule. But furthermore we have understood on our side from the Commissioners that ithe examination shall be largely in the hands of the counsel, and that even if we suggested in the ordinary way, an objection to the competence7, relevancy, or materiality of the testimony, after all 3'our Honours would admit it, if in the des- cretion of counsel he thought it suitable authentic testi- 50 mony. Hence we have not objected to incompetent testimony, to say nothing of immaterial and irrelevant testimony, in the course of this hearing. If I have misunderstood the ruling of the learned Commissioners, and the suggestion of the learned Commissioners, as to the rule in regard to the taking of testimony, I would like to know it now, so that if we are to be goverened by the rules of Common law, I may take such objections as I would deem to be necessary in an ordinary trial at nisi prius. The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—The Commissioners have not ruled upon the question of relevancy or competency of testimony. We have simply intimated that the questions that have been brought before the Commissioners with reference to the admissibility of evidence have not been questions of competency oM relevancy of evidence, but they have ralber been questions bearing upon the issues which are presented here. That is to say: the questions presented to the Commissioners so far, would require the 60 201; io 20 Commissioners to rule upon the main issues which Counsel raised on the one side or the other. So far as-these are concerned the Commissioners have been unwilling to rule upon these main issues, but prefer to leave them until the case is all in, and argued by counsel. The protests raised by counsel have been mainly upon questions of that sort. We have indicated so far as these questions are concerned our preference, but we have never yet been asked to rule upon a mere question of relevancy or competency. Mr. Dickinson:—We certainly have not asked you. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Neither side has asked us to rule, as to whether evidence of a. primary or secondary character would be allowed. What the Commissioners will do. when a question of that sort comes up is still open to question. The question before us now is merely a question with reference to which the court may exercise descretion. Two or three times' we have intimated to counsel that the examination had gone sufficient in a certain direction, and we felt that counsel would regard the usual rules with reference to the examination and cross- examination. Mr. Dickinson:—So we understood. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—So far as 1 am concerned I am unable to recall the examination sufficiently to say whether or not the question that Mr. Dickinson put would be, upon straight lines of re-cross-ex- 3 animation, admissibility in the discretion of the Court. Judge King thinks upon the whole, without giving me any reason, that it is better to allow you to put the question, and we have decided accordingly. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not care so much about the question as I do about the point that we are to be confined to these technical rules. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I agree 4° with what my learned brother has said. I would at present agree with him in objecting to laying elown before hand any firm and fast rule to be observed in this matter. But in matters relating to- the admissibility of evidence—which must be governed in our judgment by the particular case as it arises—I agree also in saying that the matter must be left largely to counsel. It must not be supposed that.we would abandon the right which eyerv court has of keeping the case fairly within the bounds of the pleadings. We must do that or otherwise the counsel would have the con- 5 trol of the case and not the court. We must do that in the interest of orderly proceedings, and in order that the case may not extend to undue length. Coming now to this matter especially in question, I for myself do not feel that I have a sufficiently accurate knowledge of what had taken place in the examination (not having taken noes) to enable me, off hand, to determine whether the matter that Mr. Peters had gone into, strictly arose out of the cross-examination or not. It appears to me that if would be better to treat it as a new qq examination which would warrant Mr. Dickinson in cross- examining upon it; and then, subject to Mr. Peters' right to re-examine further, confining himself entirely to the matter of Mr. Dickinson's cross-examination. That, I think, is the view that we entertain upon this matter. It occurs to me that it would be better to deciele each question as it aris rather than that we should constitute a precedent by laying down a rule to cover a great number of matters, which might not be in our minds at the time we made that rule. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I thipk we may say that of counsel on both sides. Without any intimation from us and without any sharp ruling on the part e>f the court counsel on both sides have very carefully followed the usual rules governing examination, cross-examination and re-examination of witnesses. In this case I agree fully with what Judge King has said. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson continued: Q.—Can you name me a ship that came around from Nova Scotia before 1886 or in the year 1886? A.—No, sir, I cannot, I cannot swear to the date. Q.—Do you know the first ship that ever did come around and that went into the sealing fleet. A.—The first ship to my recollection was the "Pioneer." Q.—Was it not the "Pathfinder"? A.—It is the same schooner. Mr. Dickinson:—Then we are agreed upon that. That is all I have to ask you. Examination of the witness closed. Mr. Peters:—Yesterday my learned friend in cross-examining Mr. Bechtel brought out from him the fact, or it came out in the course of examination, that he had been appointed ad- 40 ministrator of James Ogilvie. I am not quite sure that it may be material, but in order that the matter may be before the court I produce now the letter of Administration, which were issued to him. Mr. Dickinson:—It might be stated in the minutes that letters of administration appear to have been issued from the Supreme Court of British Columbia to A. J. Bechtel on the estate of James Ogilvie, deceased, on the 4th day of October, 1888, reciting the death to have occurred on the 26th of Aug- ;o ust, 1886. Mr. Bechtel yesterday thought that his letters of administration came from Sitka. Mr. Peters:—I will explain that to you also. The document upon which the death was proved (that is a copy of the coroner's inquest), was sent from Sitka, and that is the document be was referring to, no doubt. Of course the letters of administration must have been issued in British Columbia. I will recall Bechtel as to that. There is another matter that he might explain upon. He was also asked with regard to some stubs of receipt books and I would like bun to be examined upon that subject, and of course cross-examined by Mr. Dickinson. Andrew J. Bechtel, of the city of Victoria, a witness already examined and duh' sworn in this case was recalled; Examined by Mr. refers; 207 Q.—Ye>u were asked the other day with regard to taking out letters of administratiton ? A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Peters:—I intend, with the consent of my learned friend, which consent I think I will get, to be content with entering on the minutes the date of these letters of administration, and they need not be filed as an exhibit. (To witness) : 10 Q.—You were asked to look or some stubs of receipts, and as a matter of fact did you make a search? A.—I did, sir. Q.—What is the latest book of receipt stubs you could get? A.—I could not find the one in question. Q.—Did you bring what you could find? A.—These are just the stubs of house receipts. ' Q.—Is that the ordinary receipt book you had been keeping in 1895. A.—No, this is a house receipt. Q.—I want to call your attention to the way in which they are numbered. Do the numbers run consecutively? A.—No, 20 they are numbered according to the number of the cottage. Q.—So that in your course of business, with regard to this matter, the numbering here shows the number of your cottage? A—Yes. Q.—The first one is E. C. Davis and that is No. 6? A.— Y'es, sir. Q.—And the next one is Berrigan and that is No. 4? A.— Yes, sir. Q,—And so on all through the book? A.—You will find them just the same all through the book. 30 Q-—Not being numbered consecutively at all? A.—No, just as the name comes the number appears. Q.—Was that the way you generally did your business? A.—Yes, sir, generalty. In that book you will find there is not a space left for numbering. Q.—This other book you have here relates to transactions of 1894? A.—Yes, that is different. Q.—The book you have in your hand relates to transactions of 1895? A.—Y'es, they are'the latest, I think. I believe I have one or two for 1893, but nothing further back than that. 40 Q-—Y'ou have not been able to find the receipt books for 1886?. A.—No, in fact all of these receipt books are generally destroyed after a certain time. (Cross-examined b3r Mr. Dickinson): Q — -These are the only two stub books you could find? A. No, sir; I have more of that kind, that is house receipts. M—But none back of 1895? A.—Nothing back of 1893. Q.—Instead of putting the number of the check or the re- 50 ceipt upon the book you put the number of the cottage? A. —Just the number of the cottage in this space. Q.—Of course you would not then number them consecutively, would you? A.—No, sir. Q.—And you did not number the receipts consecutively when you received rents from the 'same cottage. If 3-011 received rents for each month for the year 1895, you elid not number these from 1 to 12, did you? A.—As the name appears the same number will appear on them. Q.—Just the cottage? A.—Yes. 60 Q-—You did not number consecutively the receip'.-i 3'ou gave the same man? A.—No, it is just as you see it there. Q.—Did you act under these letters of aehninistration? A. —Yes. sir. Q.—Did you find any heirs? A.—No, not that I know of. Q.—Did 3'ou find an37 relatives of any kind or description? A.—No, sir, none whatever. (Re-examined by Mr. Peters); 208 Q.—As a matter of fact did you have any money to give the heirs if 30U had found them? A.—No, sir. Q.—So that your search was not very necessary? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you make search? A.—I did. Instead of having money for them, it is right the opposite, so far as assets are concerned? 10 20 30 40 (lie-cross-examined ly \'r Dickinson.) Q.—You say 3*ou destroyed receipt books every four years about. A.—I lid not mention an3T time, I have destroyed them at different times. There is a difficulty in keeping 1hem around a house when you have not a regular office for that purpose, anel I often take old papers and old receipts and stubs and destroy them. Q-—Now, if Munsie came to you and got duplicate receipts for setae that were lost (within two years) of the same class of receipts and the same blank, where do you suppose you got them? A.—I could not get the same, not likely. Q,—You did not get the same? A.—I could not get the same, not likely. Q.—Did you in any searches you made find any book of receipts or any receipts of that form of blank. (Blank referred to is attached to Exhibit No. 9, G. B. "Carolena" case.) A.—I did years ago, but not of late years. Q.—Did you find any in an3- searches you have made since yesterday to find blank receipts? A.—The stub? Q.—No, the receipts? A.—No, sir. Q.—You did not find any? A.—No, sir. Q.—How long has it been since you have seen any receipts of that style made in 188S? A.—It has been a number of years since I have seen any. Q.—How many years about? A.—I cannot say. Q.—1885 is eleven 3rears ago? A.—I have not seen them for five or six or seven years and probably longer, I could not remember when one or two duplicates were made. Q.—Did you find that form of blank in any of your searches? A.—No, sir. Q.—Nor any stub books from which they had been taken? A.—No, sir, none whatever. (Examination of witness e-losed.) 9 H John Sabiston, of the City of Victoria, a witness produced 50 on behalf of Her Majesty, being duly sworn, deposed: (Examined by Mr. Bodwell.) Q.—Your name is John Sabiston? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—You live in Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Y'ou axe a pilot? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—You have been a resident of Victoria most of your life, have you not? A.—No, but I have been a resident of British Columbia all my life, and in "Victoria nine years. Q,—You lived at Nanaimo? A.—Yes. 60 Q—Your father was a pilot, I believe? A.—Yes. Q,—Did he live at Nanaimo? A.—He lived at Nanaimo and belonged to the society of pilots who operated between Victoria and Nanaimo and down to the Race Rocks and in that neighborhood. Q.—Did you know the schoner "Carolena?" A.—Yes, I knew her. Q.—How long did you know her? A.—I cannot say but quite a long time. IO 20 40 50 60 209 Q.—In what way did 3'ou come to know her? A.—Well, I seen her come to Nanaimo for coal and when the pilots owned her I would see her occasionally. I was "schooner- ing," running a schooner myself in early days. Q.—And you were accustomed to ships and took an interest in them? A.—Y'es. Q.—Did 3'ou know anything about the "Carolena" with reference to her lines, sailing qualities, and so on? A.— Yes, I had seen the vessel and she had very good lines. Q.—What were her lines according to 3'our knowledge, and what were her e apacities as a sailer, according to your know ledge? A.—She was a good sailer. Q.—What were her lines of build? A.—I do not quite understand that question. Q.—You say she was a good sailer. Did she have any reputation among sailing men? A.—Y'es. Q.—What was it? A.—That she was a fast sailer. Q.—Did you say she was owned by the pilots? A.—Yes. Q.—Were you on board of her when she belonged to the pilots? A.—No, I was not. Q.—Do you know if anything was done to her while the pilots Owned her? A.—They fitted her up for their own accommodation. Q.—And subsequently she became the property of Mr. Donald Urquhart? A.—Yes. Q.—You know that? A.—Y'es. Q.—Did you visit her after she became his property? A. —Y'es, I did. Q.—Why did 3'ou go to visit her? A.—He asked me to go down and have a look at her. Q.—What was the occasion of that? A.—He had lengthened her and made her a larger vessel. Q.—Was that work done when you went to see her? A.— Yes, she was finished. Q.—What observations did you make on that occasion? A.—I had a look at her and told him that I thought she was in very good order. Q.—What had been done to the vessel? A.—About two- thirds of the hull had been renewed in the lengthening of the boat. Q.—How did it come about that two-thirds of the hull had been renewed, just explain fully. A.—That was in breaking the joints and planking the hull and the deck. The whole planks had to be taken out so as to break the joints. Q.—And in doing that did you put in new planks? A.— Yes. Q.—How long would these new planks be in many instances? A.—They would be different lengths so as to overlap from the new work over the old work, some of the planks were, I suppose, two-thirds the length of the vessel. Q.—How about the deck? A.—The deck was similar I believe. . Q.—Was there an3'thing else done to her? A.—She had to have new rigging and sails, and spars, because the vessel was much larger than she had been. Q.—What condition was she generally in then? .V.—She was in very' good condition. Q.—Well, would you compare her as an old ship or as a new ship? A.—She was compared with a new vessel, she was nearly all new. Q.—Have you any opinion as to what a vessel like that would have been worth at that time? A.—Y'es. Q.—Now, what is 3'our opinion? A.—She would have cost to build— The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That does not answer the question. 14 1 I Mr. Bodwell:—I am afraid your Honour, you will have to let him answer in his own way because he appears to be getting confused now. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Let him answer your question. Mr. Bodwell:—I will ask the question in this way (to witness) : IO Q.—What would it have cost to build a vessel of the character of the "Carolena" as you saw her on that occasion, and fitted as you saw her? A.—$5,000. Q.—Do you know anything about the time when an exceptional interest in the sealing business took place in this port? A.—No, I do not, I cannot say. Q.—Do 3'ou remember in the year 1886 whether there was a demand for sealing schooners? A.—I cannot say whether it was 1886 or a little later. Q.—Do 3'ou remember at any time? A.—Well, not particularly. 20 Cross-examination bv Mr. Lansing. Q.—Are you now engaged as a pilot? A.—I am. Q.—At the time you lived in Nanaimo vou were a pilot? A.—I was. Q.—And your father was a pilot? A.—Yes. Q.—You knew the ship "Carolena" when she was carrying coal? A.—Y'es. Q.—Was she a large schooner? A.—No, she wasn't. 30 Q.—Where was she carrying coal to and from? A.—Nanaimo to Victoria. Q.—Who owned her? A.—She was owned by a man called Captain Jones when I first knew her. Q.—What was his first name? A.—James. Q.—You saw her after she was repaired by Captain Urquhart ? A.—Yes. Q.—And you think that two-thirds of her hull was renewed? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Fully two-thirds? A.—Y'es, sir. 40 Q-—Was two-thirds of her deck renewed? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Any new ribs in? A.—The whole new part. Q.—There were not two-thirds of the ribs renewed? A.— Well, there can't have been twotthirds quite of the frame. Q.—Of the sheathing? A.—A.—Very near it. Q.—And the deck? A.—The deck-house. Q.—New spars? A.—New spars. Q.—Who put in the new spars? A —That I couldn't tell you. Q.—Did you see Mr. Robinson on board? A.—No. Q.—It was after the work bad been completed? A.—Yes. Q.—Did they put new rails on? A.—Yes, new rails, new bulwark. Q.—Around the- whole vessel? A.—No. I don't think all round the vessed. Q.—Two-thirds of the vessel? A.—Well, pretty near it; if it wasn't t wo-thirds it was pretty near it. Q.—Is work on an old vessel more expensive than it is on a new vessel? A.—Yes. Q.—Them if you nnde'islood that the work on that vessel cost $900, yeni would still value her at $5,000 to build new? A.—I didn't know what she cost. Q.—I ask 3011 the question; if you understood that it cost $900 to build two-thirds of her hull new, and the work cost more on an old vessel than it did on a new, would 3'ou still think that it cost $5,000 to build her new? A.—-I say she would cost $5,000 to build new at that time. I have built vessels, or at least, have had vessels built. SO 60 211 Q.—Did 3'ou build any sealing schooners? A.—No, she wasn't a sealing schooner. Q.—I ask 3'ou if you had built any sealing schooners? A. — So, I am not a builder. I have paid for the building of a boat. Q.—In what year? A.—1872, and also in 1893 or 1894 Q.—Did you have any vessels built from 1881 to 1890? A. No. Q.—How do you know then how much it would cost to io build a vessel in those years? A.—Judging from what it cost in 1872 and what it cost in 1893. (2.—Did you ever buv a vessel between 1880 and 1890? A. No. Q.—Did you ever sell a vessel between 1880 and 1890? A. —Yes. Q.—What one was that? A.—The "Wanderer." Q.—When? A.—1886. Q.—Was the "Wanderer" afterwards seized? A.—1 couldn't tell you, may be she was. 20 Q.—Do you think that it would cost to-day $5,000 to build a 27-ton vessel? A.—I don't know. Q_WouId it in 1894? A.—In 1894? Q.—Yes? A.—Yes. Q.—$5,000 to build 27 tons? A.—I don't know how many tons. Q.—I don't know about the "Carolena," I ask you about a 27-ton schooner of her character? A.—Well, it would cost very near it. An eleven-ton one cost $2,500. Q.—When was there a demand for sealing schooners in ~o this port9 A.—I couldn't tell 3'ou because I haven't been in the sealing business. Re-direct examination. Q.—Did you have any application made to you with reference to the demiand for sealing vessels in 1886? A.—Well, I was asked about my own schooner. Q.—Do 3'ou know the' circumstances thai led to your being asked about 3'our own schooner? A.—W ell, a man wanted a schooner to go trading to the Wejst Coast of Vancouver 40 Island. ().—Trading for what ? A.—Furseals. Q.—Do you know an3' of the surrounding circumstances, anything that occurred at that time? A.Well, the Inelians were catching quite a number of seals on the West Coast. They thought it would be a good business in trading for them. Q.—And in consequence of that he came to 3'ou about your own schooner? A.—Y'es. Q.—What size was that vessel? A.—She was 16-tons 5° register. Q.—Where was she built? A.—San Juan Island. Q.—What did she cost? A.—$3,ono. Q.—Y'ou said you paid for the building of another'vessel? A.—Yes. Q.—When was that? A.—That was in 1S93 or 1894. Q.—Where was she built? A.—In Victoria. Q.—What was her size? A.—Eleven tons. Q.—And what did she cost? A.—$2,500. 60 Mr. Bodwell:—My friend. Mr. Lansing, appears to be under a misapprehension as to the cost of that new work. Mr. Robinson's bill was $900, but it did not include the spars or anything of that kind, and his cross-examination was on that basis. * Mr. Lansing:—I would like to ask the witness one more question in regard to the sale of the "Wanderer." Y'ou say it was for trading purposes? 20 40 Mr. Bodwell:—My friend asked a question about the "Wanderer, then he asked if that was the vessel that was seized, and the> witness said may be it was, and he stopped his examination there. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—We will allow the question to be put. Mr. Lansing:—I do not care to ask it, thank you. By the Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Q.—Do you know, Mr. Witness, that this vessel had new spars at that time? A.—The "Carolena?" Q.—Yes, in 1884? A.—I couldn't say what year it was in. Q.—When she was lengthened out? A.—Yes, she had new spars then. Q.—How do you know that; were 3rou interested in her at that time? A.—No, I was not interested, the owner was down there looking at her. Q.—To what extent did she have new spars? A.—She had two masts, supposed to liave been built new. Q.—Two new masts? A.—-New masts. Q.—Of course she had new standing rigging then? A.—O, yes. Q.—Have new running rigging? A.—New running rig- j|fg|g-; new blocks. Q.—Did she have new sails? A.—Well, I would not be positive whether she had sails bent when I was down there or not. Q.—Mr. Peters, haven't 3-011 any witnesses that know what work was elone on that schooner at that lime? Mr. Peters:—I have some witnesses. We will give to the Ceiurt am- information we can. I cannot say exactly that we can gel a witness to show the exact work done on her; but i think we will prove that the "Carolena'' had certainly new sails. Mr. Urquhart, who owned the vessel at that time, is dead, and he is Hie only person who bad a direct interest in keeping a record of that, but I think I have an entry in one of the books. The ''oinmissioner on Ihe part of the Uniteel States:—I do not care to have a statement about it. I wanted to know if 3'ou had some witnesses who knew exactly what was done. Mr. Peters:—No, we cannot get a witness who can give a full statement after this length of time. 50 60 John Clark, called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Beique: Q.—Mr. Clark, where do you reside? A.—In Victoria, sir. ii-—I low long have you resided in Victoria? A.—14 years. Q.—What has been your occupation? A.—I am a shipwright by trade. Q.—All I'.u' time? A.—Been constantly at it since I have been in Vie-toria. Q.—During these 14 years? A.—During 15 or 16 years I have been steady at it. Q.—1'pon 3'our own account? A.—Nine years on my own account, cemtrarting and building. Q.—For the last nine years? A.—Yes, sir. ■ 213 Q.—Before these 15 or 16 years, were you in the same business also elsewhere? A.—Been in the shipbuilding business, that is, a journevman. on and off the last 25 years. Q.—Where? A.—In the East. Q.—In Nova Scotia? A.—In Nova Scotia. Q.—And all that time you have been occupied in the building of vessels? A.—Not all the time, on and off for 25 years; 16 years steady at it. Q.—Did you work on building pretty large vessels? A.— to Yes, sir. Q.—What tonnage? A.—Well, I have worked on vessels all the way from 100 tons to 1,800 tons. Q.—Did you build any sealing schooners? A.—I built two sealing schooners in this part. Q.—^^'hat were they, their names? A.—The "Victoria" was one, and the "Enterprise.' Q.—When did 3'ou build them? A.—I commenced in the fall of 1891, and got done in the spring of 1892. Q.—Both of them? A.—Yes, sir. 20 Q-—Pid you build them under contract? A.—One of them. Q.—Whieli one? A.—The "Victoria." Q.—What is her tonnage? A.—A fraction less than 70 tons—69 tons. Q.—About 09 tons? A.—A fraction less than 69.tons. Q.—What was the contract price for the building of that schooner? A.—$8,750 I had for building the "Victoria," the contract price. Mr. Dickinson:—May it please 3'our Honours, I will forma oq \y object to the competency of testimony bearing on this issue, the contract price of the cost of building a ship in 1892-3, as bearing on the value of a ship six years before. It obviously appears that testimony, to be competent on the value Of a ship, must bear upon the time when the ship was seized, or when the value was in question. That, of course, is too clear for argument. Of course, if there is no testimony to be hae as to the value of ships in port, as of the time when the valuation was to be fixed, then they may go into prior years and subsequent years and trace back; but in order to make sub- 40 sequent testimony competent 3'ears after the fact, or years before the fact, the impossibility of producing such testimony bearing on the value at the time must be demonstrated. There is no question whatever like that here, for the reason that it is apparent that there were any number of ships here and about this port in 18S4, 1885, 1886, 1887 and 1888; there were fleets of such ships here; and the question is not what it cost to build, unless they can show that ships were built at that time. Then, of course, it would have some bearing on the value of the ship, if they show the cost of building at 50 that time; but the most suitable and authentic testimony of which this subject will admit bearing on the value, is the market value of ships when there was a demand, and when there was a fleet here at the port of Victoria, or in this business here on the coast in 1886. We submit that the cost of building a ship when conditions had changed, as has been demonstrated here, six years later, can have no possible bearing on the value of a sealing ship in 18S6. Mr. Beique:—We have it in evidence that there were very 60 few vessels built here in 1886 when this vessel was seizee outside of those that are in issue, or will be in issue in the other cases, I do not at present remember of am' one; and, so far as those are concerned, I understand that it is the desire of the Commissioners that we should not go into their cost, and I understand that to be the ruling given yesterday. Now we have it also in evidence that the price of building vessels was considerably more in 1886 than it has been in later 3'ears, 1893 or 1892, being the' years about which the present wit- ness was speaking, and therefore it seems to me that it is competent evidence and good evidence, to enquire as to the cost of vessels in these later years. 1 Mr. Dickinson:—I have one word more to say. Of course it is perfectly apparent, that if the new ground my friend takes, that evidence of the cost of the ship in 1892 may bear on the cost of a ship in 1886, by reason of the difference in the cost, it naturally follows that it is necessary for them to show the cost in order to show the difference in cost. Then my brother's argument, it seems to me. is a demonstration of the incompetency of the testimony, because it is predicated upon his ability to show the cost of a ship in 1886 approximately, in order to show the difference between the cost in 1886 and the time as to which he offers the testimony as to the cost of the ship. That seems to me very clear. If his testimony is only competent in 1892, on the ground my friend states that by the testimony of 1892 a comparison, may be made with 1886, then he is comparing what undoubtedly would be com- 20 petent testimony, although not the best testimony. We must have, as a basis of comparison, competent testimony as to what the cost was in 1886 and thus demonstrate the immateriality of his testimony of 1892. But further, the testimony of the cost of a vessel, while it may be competent, is not ihe best testimony, unless it also appears that there is no evidence as to the value of a ship because there were no ships at the point as to which a place is fixed for valuation; and the best testimony of value, by all the rules, of ships, of -horses, of goods, of chattel property of every kind and de- 30 scription, is the market value at the time and place. In the absence of ships for sale and a demand for ships at the point, it is true that cost may be some evidence of value. Non constat, cost may be some evidence of value in the absence of better proof; but at the time when they wish to fix a valuation, this port was full of ships. The3r had a market value; ships were bought and sold; there is no question about it; there is no difficulty about giving your Honours the best proof. But,, on the matter of cost, my friend says, there could be no ships shown that were built here in 1886 at the 40 time; no ships shown built earlier than six years later. Does it follow, that if no ships were built here, we must find the cost of the ship six years before, or six years after, in arriving, not at the cost of a ship, but at its market value? The true criterion is never the cost of the thing, because the owner, as has been demonstrated here by witness after witness, may pay more or pay less than she is worth.- The cost is never an' essential element of damages. The onl3' use of cost in any case is, that it may be some evidence tending to show value in the absence of better testimony. -1 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—To me it seems that this evidence cannot be said to be, as argued by Mr. Dickinson, in the position of secondary evidence admissible only in case some primary evidence is not obtainable; but that to the extent that it is . relevant at all, il is not secondary evidence, but primary evidence. Now the enquiry is as to- the value in 1886. Well, as. he rightly argues, evidence of cost in 1886 might have some bearing upon value in 1886. Well, evidence of cost in 1888, if conditions g0 are proved to be the same, would also have some bearing upon value in 1886; and so would evidence of cost in 1892, if the evidence shows that the conditions were the same, or at all events no more adverse to his view. The evidence of cost in 1892 would be-some evidence in the same way of cost in 1886; and if the enquiry was solely as to what was the cost in 1886, I think, upon the evidence before us, that cost in 1892 would be material and relevant evidence upon that issue. Of course we have to bear in mind that the enquiry was not as to the 215 IO 20 30 cost in 1886, but as to the value in 1886. Still, there has been considerable evidence given as to cost in 1888 and 1889 and years between 1886 and 1892, and to me it seems as if this evidence is as properly material and relevant evidence as that. It is a matter to my mind of degree. The value of the testimony, the degree of importance to be attached to it, diminishes as you get awa3' from the date respecting which the enquiry is made; and I would be inclined to think that the counsel for the claimants have got almost to the remotest limit of date when testimony would be fairly considered to have much weight in determining the value at the date in question. It seems to me, however, that the evidence cannot be said to be strictly inadmissible, but that the objection is one that affects, and veiw materially affects, its weight before this Tribunal. This expression of opinion is entirely my own, and my learned brother, I think, does not share my views fully—perhaps not at all. This, however, is the view that I take of the matter. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— I would like to explain my views. I am perfectly well aware that, upon strict rules of law, it may be very doubtful whether this evidence would be admissible in a court of justice. I am not clear whether it would or not; but it is very doubtful to my mind. Nevertheless, a great deal of evidence of this kind has gone in, following out the theory stated by Mr. Beique when I called his attention day before 3resterday to the question whether this evidence is admissible. Mr. Beique then stated his method of working back to 1886. works back in a different way from what I then supposed ne would; so that, to a large extent, he has met the objections which then presented themselves to my mind. He works back by making comparisons of prices, labor and materials. I must say that I have listened to this testimony attentively, and that it has had some weight upon my mind, for the reason that it has led up to the proposition or fact that there was some-ground- for claiming that the condition of things at Victoria was peculiar. If this was the case of the trial of the value of a vessel at Boston or New York, and I was presiding, I should say at once that the testimony could not admitted. But the condition here is peculiar, that is, it is claimed to be peculiar, and the testimony tends to lead up to the support of that proposition. It is in a certain sense like getting at the value of vessels at remote points, as we occasionally have to do, and where it is the custom to open the door veiw wielely not only as to vessels, but as to other prop- criy—much wieier than Ave would open it in getting at the value of property in and about the large marts. It is on that account that I listened to this evidence which came in yesterday. I think contracts were shown as late as 1890, 1891 and perhaps 1892. I felt that this testimony had some rele- vano3r. although perhaps I do not look at it exactly in the same wa3" as does Judge King; but my own personal view of it is that, with the evidence, we have hael quite enough to enable us to understand the peculiar condition here, if there is such. I, of course, should 3leld to the views of Judge; King with reference to the admissiSli1\ of further evidence in this direction, if counsel desire to put it in; although I feel that we have had quite enough. The onte thing T have to go say in addition to what Judge King has said is, that I of course agree with him in admitting ths evdene-e>; hut on my own behalf my mpression would be that we have had quite enough of it to enable us to understand the peculiar condition here, if there be such. Mr. Dickinson:—-I have just a word to say. We had understood on our siele, very distinctly from the Commissioners, that the examination would be- largely in the hands of coun- 40 5° I (111 IS' m attention was called to certain parts of the testimony as to which we saw clear objection from our point ot view to its competency; and upon the intimation of the court, and for the purpose of saving time in arguing objections, we dicl not interpose objections to the testimony which we deemed incompetent. At the same time we had no intention of abandoning our right, after the close of this class of testimony, to move to strike it out, or to argue to your Honours that it was incompetent. 10 The Commissioner on the part of Her. Majesty:—I think that is always open to you, Mr. Dickinson, to argue as to its incompetency at the final argument. Mr Dickinson:—We accept the rulings, of course, and are entirely satisfied with them, as they will apply to us later on, as well as to our friends on the other side. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I think there is a misunderstanding on the part of counsel. Of ,r, course we are all feeling our way to a certain extent. These objections that were formally brought to the attention of the Commissioners were objections relating to the issues here, that is to say. I hey related to the competency of testimony— The Commissioner on the part.of Her Majesty:—Class of testimony. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Class of testimony—the mass of testimony. Take, for instance, the question whether we should hear evidence in this case with ,0 reference to the probable catch in 1887; that was a class ot testimony brought especially to our attention. Upon that, ot course the Commissioners say that it would not do to rule upon it until we had heard the final arguments; but as to these incidental matters that come up, the Commissioners have taken no special position about them as yet, and I think this is the first time that we have had occasion to rule distinctly upon a narrow question of the admissibility of evidence. Mr. Beique:—I am agreed with my learned friends, Mr. 4° Peters and Mr. Bodwell, that it has been our understanding of the ruling of the Commissioners heretofore, that they were limited to the very thing mentioned by your Honour. , The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I can see nothing in what has beem said here to-day te prevent Mr. Dickinson arguing at a later stage that the evidence now offered does not furnish any real proof of that which requires to be proved; namely, the value of the vessel. It is still open to him, it seems to me. At all events my mind will be »^ ooen to anv argument he adduces upon the subject. 5° * ' * Direct examination of Mr. Clark resumed by Mr. Beique. Q _You stated, Mr. Clark, the contract price for the vessel "Victoria" as being $8,750? A.—Yes, sir. q—Will vou sav whether it was, from your experience, a fair price or not?* A.—A fair price. I was the lowest.tenderer anyway. 1 Q.—Did you represent the value of the vessel fairly then. A.— 1 think so. 6o q.—you built it under contract? A.—Yes, sir. Q._Will you say what it included? A.—It included the hull'of the vessel, spars, standing-rigging, running gear and sails, two anchors, chains, I think that is about all. No flags, no side-lights, no riding-light, no log-line, log, nothing of Unit kind that was extra. q.—Xo outfit? A.—No sealing outfit. q. Now you say that you built the "Enterprise" also in the same vear? A.—Y'es, sir. 21. Q.—She was not built under contract? A.—No, sir. Q.—Built for your own use? A.—I built her for myself. Q.—Do you know what was the cost of her? A. —In th neighbourhood of $9,000. They were both about the sam class of vessels. Q.—The same tonnage? A.—Just about the same tonnage sir. Q.—Now will you say if the prices of vessels from 1886 t 1890 had increased or decreased at Victoria? A.—I think i0 slightly decreased; I hadn't much to do with them in 1886, any more than to work as a journeyman. I couldn't definitely say as to the prices in 1886; slightly decreased I think. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson. Q.—What was the price of building such a ship in 1886? A.—I didn't build any in 1886. Q.—Do j'ou know anything about it? A.—Xothing more than to work among the builders here. Q.—Were there any built in 1886? A.—Not to my know- 20 ledge. Q.—Why do you say that the price of building such ships had decreased from 1886? A.— Well, I think from what I knew about the material that it had slightly decreased. Q.—Any difference in wages? A.—No difference that I am aware of. Q.—Well, there was no building here in 1886 of sealing ships was there? A.—No, sir. ().—Nor 1885? A.—No, sir. Q.—Nor 1884? A.—I don't think so. 30 Q.—Nor 1887? A.—Not that I know of. Q.—Nor .1888? A.—No sir, not that I knetw of. Q.—You don't know do 3'ou from any actual building of sealing snips whether the price had increased or tlecreased up to 1892? A.—I think there was one schooner built here about 1888. Q.—Sealing schooner? A.—I think so, I would not be positive. Q.—You are not positive about it, of any ships that were built of this class? A.—The schooner "Minnie" was built 40 about that time. Q.—Has that been in your mind in giving your testimony, as to increase and decrease? A.—Not until you called my attention to it. Q.—Then you have no basis on whidi you estimate an increase or decrease in the cost of the actual building of a ship? A.—In 1887 I was in the repairing business. I had a chance to know what material— Q.—What material you put into repairs? A.—Lumber, and the like. 5° Q-—But you did not have in the building of sealing ships altogether the same timber that you used in repairing? A.— Oh, the timbers are all about the same. Q.—There is some difference in cost between getting rmough timber to keep up repairs, and enough to build an entire new sl^ip? A.—O. certainly. Q.—Y'ou cannot tell anything about the cgM of a ship in 1884, 1885, 1886 and 1887? A.—O. I had nothing to dei with them at that time. <5o Re-direct examination by Mr. Beique: Q.—In the answer which 3*011 have givem to the last question, have vou in mind sealing vessels or vessels of all sorts? A.—I merely answered the question that I had nothing to do wilh sealing vessels at that time. I was repairing. Q.—But in I^s;,, in 1886, and all along to this dfflje vou have been working at building other vc with the contractors here. A.—Workin- Q„—Anel therefore you have had experience as to the cost of such vt ssels? A.—I knew about what the cost of material Q.—Would that enable you to fix a value as to sealing vessels—the experience that you have had all along with other vessels? A.—I know the "cost in 1892 anel I think that they slightly decreased, I would say, since 1886. Q.—But I am asking you as to whether the experience you have had in the building of vessels generally would help you 10 in forming an opinion as to the value and cost of sealing schooners? A.—Certainly, 3Tes. Mr. Dickinson:—If the court please, in connection with the cross-examination of Mr. Bechtel, who produced the stub- book, I desire with the consent of my learned friends to put in the transcript one set of stubs. Mr. Peters:—Hadn't we better take another set too. By agreement of counsel the following samples from the 20 stub-book mentioned are made a part of the record. "No. 4.—Date, August 31, 1895; William Benyon; amount, $11.00." "No. 4.—Date, 30th September, 1895; William Benyon; amount, $11.00." "No. 4.—Date, 30th November, 1895; William Benyon; amount, $11.00." "No. 6.—Date,, August 31, 1895; E. C. Davis; amount, $11.00." "No. 6.—Date September 30, 1895; E. C. Davis; amount, 3° $11.00." "No. 6.—Date, 31st October, 1895; E. C. Davis; amount, $11.00." It is admitted by counsel that there are others of the same series in each case, and that the above are simply samples. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Peters, can you inform the Commissioners when you will probably close this case? 4° Mr. Peters:—We are about going into the evidence of probable catch. That will take quite a considerable time and must, by its nature, be applicable to a number of other cases. The length of.time which it will take will depend a good deal upon my learned friend's cross-examination, but it will take at all events a day. Mr. Dickinson:—My friend can form some judgment of my cross-examination so far. Mr. Peters:—It will be understood that of course a good 5° deal of the evidence given in this case will by its nature be applicable to other cases, and the other cases will be very considerably shorter than this one. At this point the Commissioners rose. 2IQ Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 7, 1896. At 1:45 the Commissioners took their seats. Mr. Peters:—The United States Government has furnished us with copies of certain correspondence relating to the seiz- I0 ure of the vessel "Carolena" between the Treasury Department and the different officers of the vessels, and also the officers at Sitka, certain parts of whieh I propose to put in, and I will read them to the Commissioners. The copies I propose to put in are copies certified by the proper authorities of the United States Government. First is a document from George B. Tingley, Treasury Agent, to the Secretary of the Treasury at Washington, dated August 18, 1886. 20 Next is a letetr from George R. Tingley to Honourable C. S. Pairchild, Acting Secretary of the Treasury, dated August 18, 1886. Next is a letter from C. A. Abbey, captain of the Unitec States Revenue Marine, to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated August 7. 1886. Mr. Dickinson:—May I ask your object in reading this testimony? The reason I enquire is that I supposed the fact of the seizure was found by the Paris Arbitration. Mr. Peters:—There are several facts that come out. The Commissioner on the part of Her'Majesty:—The first letter you read related simply to the fact of the seizure. Mr. Peters:—It is important to show the date when the fact of the seizure came to the knowledge of the United States Government; that may be material. Also the letters showing the date of the seizure, and there are other facts through . this correspondence relating to the 40 opportunities they had for catching seals at that time, and also relating to how the prisoners, as they were called were treated; also the outfit taken from the vessels; also the object for which the seizure was made. The next one I propose to read is a letter from C. A. Abbey, captain of one of the vessels, dated September 3, 1886, to the Honourable, the Secretary of the Treasury. • 50 60 It appears, I ma3- say that these letters are not the full report, but simple extracts, such parts as bear upon the particular cases. The next one is a letter from C. A. Abbey to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated September 22, 1886. Extracts from the log of the revenue steamer "Corwin." se^ason of 1886. There are several other letters which relate to another part of the case, but which I think I will put in conveniently here. They relate to the catch—probable catch—for the year 1887. Next is a letter from L. G. Shepard, captain of one of the eutters, dated August 11, 1887, to Honourable Charles S. Pairchild, Secretary of the Treasury. Next is a letter from M. A. Heal3', captain of one of the cutters, to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated August 27, 1887. Also extracts from the log of the revenue steamer for the season of 1887, dated August 25, 1887. Mr. Dickinson:—I would like to ask my friends if there is anything about the "Carolena" in this correspondence. I submit that, if not, the correspondence can have no legitimate bearing on the issue here. My friend says there is nothing in the correspondence referring exactly to the Carolena." However, I will take no time except to call the - court's attention to it. Mr. Peters:—We claim in this case—whether rightfully or iri wrongfullv will afterwards be a matter for argument; that we have the right to claim for the prospective catch that would have been made in 1887. We may be right in that contention, and we may not; and I think the court will see the advSility of allowing that matter to stand. We are simply now showing from their own log what certain vessels, both American and Canadian, caught in 1887. We can get no better evidence than the actual statement of their own officers on that point, and that is our object in tendering bis evidence. 20 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The rights of the counsel for the United States are fully reserved. Mr. Dickinson:—This is just { trifle different, your Honour. As to the amount of seals found, there is no evidence that they were caught,-they may have been purchased of the Indians in accordance with the custom. I supposed that when your Honours ruled upon that question it would be upon the direct testimony of the catch. Mr. Peters:—We will attempt to make those points certain 30 as to whether they were or we>re not seized in Behring Sea, as we go along. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand that there is this additional objection, that is to sav the question raised the other day was whether yon woi.id be permitted to give evidence showing probable catch in 1887 with reference 11 the "Carolena." The attorneys for the United States, passing by this point, say that, even it you are allowed to give evidence of that character, this evidence 40 is not relevant, and has no weight for thai purpose, because, non constat, these seals were captured by these vessels. l can only say whal I said the other day that, so far as I am concerned, I regret exceedingly that we are bothered with evidence of this secondary class, when I presume HH the counsel for Her Majesty has primary evidence of the most satisfatlory character. Mr Peters-—I have primarv evidence with regard to some vessels, and with regard U e>thers I have not. For instance en here I find it stated that certain American vessels were seizeel 5 at that time, 1 have no evidence with regard to those vessels as to what they caught or where they caught it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It will o-o in as heretofore, it being understood that the United States reserves objections on this further ground in addition to what was specified the other day. (Mr. Peters continues reading from log.) The Commissioners ordered that all the' foregoing papers 60 read by Mr. Peters be printed as Exhibit No. 15, Claim No. 1, G.B. Mr Peters—I wish to call the attention of the court now to an extract from the report of the Governor of Maska, tor the fiscal year 1886, made to the Government of the United States, and published by the Government. On page 4t tne following report is contained under the head of the Protection etf Fur Seal and Sea Otter": IO 20 30 40 50 60 221 "The capture of one American and'three British vessels while engaged in taking seals in the inland waters of Alaska by the Revenue Cutter "Corwin" has no doubt been fuily. reported by her zealous and meritorious commander, Capt. C. A. Abey, to the proper department, and but for the fact that the officers and crews were brought to Sitka, and, together with the captured property turned over to the United States marshal, the subject might not be considered one within the province of his report. The masters and mates of the sevral vessels were tried at a special term of the district court and all convicted and sentenced to brief terms of imprisonment and thre of them to payment of fines ranging from $300 to C500 each. The terms of imprisonment of all save the master of the American vessel having very nearly expired on the 29th of September, on the urgent request and recommendation of the honourable judge of the district court before whom the convictions were hael, I granted respites in the sev- ■ ml cases, save the exemption noted, and the prisoners were; released and allowed to depart for their several homes. They were without means, and, had they been detained until the expiration of their sentences, would have become objects o charity among strangers until the sailing of the next monthly steamer." Alexander R. Milne called on the part of Great Britain was sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—You reside at Victoria? A.—I do. Q.—And have for how many years? A.—32 years. Q.—What official position do you occupy here? A.—I am Collector of Customs for the port. Q.—For how many 3*ears have you been Collector of Customs? A.—Seven years. Q.—Prior to that were you employed by the Custom's Department? A.—I was. Q.—For how many years? A.—From the year 1874. Q.—In different capacities? A.—In different capacities. Q.—In the Custom's Department at Victoria ? A.—At Victoria. Q.—Are you now the custodian of all the papers connected with the registration of shipping at Yictoria? A.—I am the registrar, of shipping. Q.—How long have 3'ou been registrar of shipping? A.— Seven years. Q.—And as registrar of shipping have 3rou the control and custody of all the official records connected with the registration of shipping? A.—I have. Q.—Have you looked over your books for the purpose of ascertaining from the 3rears 1886 and 1887 how many schooners were actual^' registered at the port of Victoria, or were available at the port of Victoria? A.—I have. Q.—Referring to the certified copy from your book which I hand 3rou, is that a correct statement from your book? (Witness examines statement.) Q.—That is made up from 3'our records? A.—It is. Q.—And for what 3'ears? A.—1886 and 1887. Q.—What does it show? A.—It shows the available vessels that could be adapted and were prosecuting the sealing industry. Q.—That were available at Yictoria? A.—That were available at Victoria. Q.—In those years? .V.—For coasting and sealing. Q.—And does that give a fair statement of the actual shcooners at that time available for those purposes? .V.—It does. Mr. Peters:—I propose to put that document in evidence. I HI II 20 30 40 50 60 To witness:—This is compiled by 3'ou? A.—Compiled under my direction. Q.—The schooners that you have mentioned here are schooners running from about 14 tons up to something over 100. I see one here as high as 124? A.—That is so. Q.—And those are all the schooners of that class available n the years 1886 and 1887 at Victoria? A.—That were suit able for that industry. Q.—At that time, in 1886 and 1887, was there any other port of registration in the province of British Columbia except Victoria? A.—I think not, I am not quite certain on that point. Q.—There are more now? A.—There are two more now. 0-—You can make sure of that fact, can you not? I thought you were certain. A.—O, yes, it is my impression that there were not. Up to' the year 1880 I think Westminster was only an out-port of this port. Q.—Now this statement you have here indicates, does it not, the tonnage and name of the vessel? A.—Tonnage and name of the vessel. Q.—Does it show where she was built? A.—Y'es. Q.—And when? A.—Y'es. Q.—And states when she was registered at Victoria? A. —And states when she was registered at Victoria. Q.—That is all the information it gives? A.—I think so. Q.—That is, the rig, number of tons, where built, when built, and when registered at Victoria? ■ A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Of Course the information as to where built and when built you took from papers that would be brought to you from wherever the vessel came? A.—Wherever she came from. Q.—Statement offered in evidence marked "Claim No. 1, Exhibit No. 16, G. B." Cross-examination b3' Mr. Dickinson: Q.—There is nothing on here (referring to statement) to indicate that she is for sealing, is there? A.—There is a notation in the margin. Q.—And where did you get that, from your official records? A.—From our official records. Q.—Do your official records indicate that the ship is a sealer? A.—It dosen't indicate that she cleared for a sealing voyage. It inelicates in the manner of entering and clearing that she engageel for a sealing voyage. Q.—That you get from the clearance. There is nothing on the register to indicate whether she is a sealer or not? A.— No. Q.—Only from the clearance? A.—.Only from the clearance. Q.—And you have noted those that cleared merely for coasting, and only cleared for coasting and sealing? A.— Y'es, sir. Q,—Where there is no steam, or partially steam, vessels engaged in sealing? A.—In the years 1886 and 1887, there were no steam vessels engaged in sealing. Q.—Nor any partially fitted with steam? A.—None, not that year. Q.—Now you have not included in this, I assume, Mr. Milne, anything but ships of British registry? A.—British register. Q.—Were American ships reported to you when they entered this port? A.—Always, Q.—And I suppose there were many American ships reported here, in addition to those of British register for this period? A.—Not during those years. q._No ships reported in 1886 or 1887? A.—O, yes, a few, not many. IO 20 40 223 Q.—Have 3'ou any record of those for 1886 and 1887? A.— We have. Q.—Will you kindly give us a report of those? A.—I will, with pleasure. Q.—Were there any other vessels here at Victoria, aside from these that were registered, that were adapted for that purpose, or could be adapted for that purpose? A.—No, none whatever; there were only small vessels, 4, 5, 6, and 8 tons. Q.—But.you do not assume to give here, any vessels except those that have been cleared for coasting, or coasting and sealing? A.—That is all. Q.—This statement does not purport, does it, to give all the vessels, but only the vessels that had cleared? A.^—I think it gives all the vessels, with the exception of a few, that were under nine tons. Q-—Does it give the name of any vessel that did not take a clearance for coasting, or for coasting and sealing? A.— That report? Q.—Yes? A.—No. Q,—How do you know that there were any vessels registered in the port thai did not take clearance for coasting,.or for coasting and sealing? A.—Well, it is part of onr regulations, if they depart without clearance, coastwise, they are amenable to the law. Q.—But might there not be vessels in the port that did not clear during the years 1886 and 1887 for coasting and sealing? A.—Unless they were going not further than our inland waters. Q.—There might be such vessels? A.—Small ones, 4 and 5 tons. Q.—And might there not be vessels lying here in 1886 and 1887 that did not clear for coasting or for coasting and sealing? A.—No. Q.—How do you know? A.—The demand for vessels was so keen. Q.—^But you know that outside of your office? A.—Outside of the office. Q.—Y'ou have no official record beyond the vessels that cleared for coasting, or for coasting and sealing? A.—We assume. Q.—Just answer that question, whether you have anything which gives you the names of any vessels except those that were cleared for coasting, or for coasting and sealing? A.— We have the names of vessels that may enter the port this year, and may not depart for five years—lie continuously in the bone-yard. When ready to depart they get their clearances. Q.—I think your data here does not give the date of the clearance, does it, in 1886 and 1887? A.—No, it does not give the date of clearance. It wasn't prepared with that object. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters 60 Q.—You made a statement, Mr. Milne, to Mr. Dickinson that, in the years 1886 and 1887, there were no steam or auxiliary steam vesels employed in the seal fishery. I think perhaps you made that without considering. The "Thornton" is on this list? A.—The3f are marked, the steam schooners are marked; the "Aciive" is another steam schooner, the "Grace" came in afterwards, the "Dolphin" is not here, she is a steam 3chooner. I hadn't examined these, I thought they came in subsequent^'; I though it wasn't until 1888 that they were fitted with auxiliary power. Q.—So that part of your statement 3rou withdraw? A.—I do, without the books I couldn't recollect exact dates. 224 Q.—The steam schooners are marked and distinguished on this list? A.—Yes. Q.—There appear to be several, the "Dolphin," the "Anna Beck," the "Thornton," so that there were three on this list. Sir Hibbert Tupper:—The "Grace" is on there too? Mr. Peters:—She is not marked "steam." She is on the list. 10 To witness:—You were also asked by Mr. Dickinson as to whether there might not be other vessels that may not have cleared, and may not have got on your record, I want you o answer this question from your own knowledge; do you know, or do you not know, whether this is the list of the schooners that were actually here at that (iine? A.—They were all on the registry books. They are not cancelled, many of them, to this day. Q.—And were there an3' others not on the register? A.—I 20 don't know of any others. This was taken from the record. Q.—Except small ones? A.—Small vessels. Q.—I mean to say except small vessels, 8 or 10 tons ? A. —That is all, we do not call pleasure boats, and boats of eight and nine tons. Q.—I mean vessels suitable for sealing; does this list include them? A.—That includes them all. so far as I know. Q.—In making up this list I think you have not put in any arge ships? A.—The principal vessels of this port, larger than those vessels, are all steamers. 30 Q-—You began to make a statement to Mr. Dickinson, which you did not quite complete, with regard to there being a demand for schooners at this time. What were you about to say. Mr. Milne? A.— In 1886 and 1887 the value of the sealing industry began to be appreciated; consequently people wanted to invest their capital in vessels here, every available craft was purchased that I am aware of. The "Car- Dlena" and vessels of her class were engaged in other industries before 1886 and 1887. In 1886 she was a pilot boat. Q.—1886 is the year she went sealing? A.—Prior to that 40 she was a pilot. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—I will ask a question on that new matter, if you please. I believe you were not engaged yourself in the sealing business? A.—I have no interest, nor ever had, directly or indirectly, in any vessel, boat, or ship. Q.—No one came to ask 3'ou to purchase any? A.—None whatever. Q.—Or to enquire of 3'ou whether you knew there was any 5 for sale? A.—I don't remember that they did; someone^ might have asked me casually, officially I know nothing about it. Q.—The "Favorite" was a sealing schooner before that, wasn't she? A.—The "Favorite," before engaging in the sealing indusl ry, used to make 3'early, and I don't know but semi-3'early, trips to Honolulu. Q.—Engaged in sealing? A.—Engaged in bringing up mol- Q.—Was she engaged in sealing? A.—No, not that I am aware of. Q— Prior to 1886? A.—Prior to 1886—I don't think so. Q.—In 1S86 was she on this list of schooners? A.—I think she was engaged in sealing in 1886. 0.—Will you be good enough to see if you find the "Favorite" there in 1S86? A.—You said prior to 1886. Q.—Well I say in, .1886? A.—In 1886 she was engaged in sealing. 22 = IO 20 40 50 60 Q.—Y'ou find her name there? A.—(Examining) 1 think so; yes, there il is. Q.—You made a repe>r(, I think. Mr. Milne, I have not the original to show 3*011, but I show you a statement in volume 5 American He-Print, "Appendix 3 and 4, to case G.B." I am reading from page 394, top paging, 359 marginal paging.. Have 3'ou made a statement to this effect, Mr. Milne: "The following vessels were engaged on the west coast as sealers in the years 1882 and 1883, but which did not enter Behring Sea: Schooners 'Favourite,' 'Alfred Adams,' 'Anna Beck,' 'Dolphin,' 'Grace,' 'Onward,' 'Thornton,' 'W. P. Sayward,' 'Black Diamond.'" A.—I think I made that statement. Q.—That was correct? A.—I think so. Q.—Did 3'ou also state that in the 3'ear 1884 the schooner "Mary Ellen," of Victoria, British Columbia, fitted out at San Francisco with a crew of 16 men to hunt seals along the west coast? A.—I remember of making a statement that she had cleared for a sealing voyage; I can't say now from memory. Q.—In 1884, two years" before 1886? A.—I think that was the first 3'ear they entered Behring Sea. Q.—You stated, I think, that she entered Behring Sea about the fifteenth of June? A.—I think so. Q. - And left at the end of August, the same year. That is 1884, isn't it? A.—1884, I think I made that statement. i Mr. Peters:—Y'ou might read the rest of that sentence. Mr.—Dickinson:—If you would like it. "The voyage was satisfactory to owner and crew; they piiHjkcuted their legitimate and peaceful voyage upon the high seas without an3' interference from anyone." Is that what you want? Mr. Peters:—Thanks. Q—In 1885 you reported that the "Mary Ellen" and "Favorite" entered Behring Sea, I think? A.—I think I did. Q.—And you reported that a number of vessels were added to the fleet in the following year, 1886? A.—Yres. Mr. Dickinson:—Would you like the rest of that paragraph, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—Yes. Mr. Dickinson:—I am going to put it all in in time; there are some reflections upon the seizure of the "Carolena" which for the same reason maybe you. would like. Q.—Now did you also report that about the 3'ear T>78 and 1879, schooners belonging to the port of Victoria, British Columbia, began to extend their voyages seaward, and the migration of the seals became better understooel. that schooners cruising southerly in the spring months would meet the returning seals bound northward; that at th:a time the following schoners were engaged in the traffic: "Thornton," "Anna Beck," "Favorite," "Onward"—page 393, top paging, 358, marginal? A.—Well, before answering that qeust'on, these vessels were engaged, portions of the 3'ear, visiting stations on the West Coast. Q.—Y'ou made that report in that language? A.—I think so; I think I made that report. Q.—Now I will ask you, while 3'ou are on the stand, if you will be good enough to look at that, and see if it is an accurate statement, made by you, commencing page 393. Jus look it through and see if you made it. A.—(Examining. In regard to the question about the "Favorite" as to which 3-ou enquire; previous to her engaging fully in the sealing i dustry she was sailing between here and Honolulu, and oecas ionally would take cargoes from here to the west coast, and when it was not the sealing season on the coast, or visiting sealing stations, she was likely to be sent down to Honolulu to bring up cargo. 15 rT*T*S£?P^ 126 10 20 40 50 60 Mr. Dickinson:—Now, Mr. Reporter, will you read the question? Question read. Witness:—(Examining report.) O. t think so, without consulting my own copies, I fancy this is all right. Mr. Dickinsou:—I offer as a part of the cross-examination of Mr. Milne, the statement which he says is the correct report. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Dickinson have 3'ou put this into the case? Mr. Dickinson:—I propose to as a part of the cross-examination, your Honour. Mr. Peters:—May it please the Commissioners, concerning the question, put by my learned frienel. I have no objection to it whatever; but, if put in in this way, possibly, on looking through this report carefully, there may be something I would like to draw the attention of this witness to. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You want to reserve the right to re-examine him about it at some future time. Mr. Peters:—Yes, your Honour. Mr. Dickinson:—This statement, if your Honours' please, I desire to have go in now as a part of the cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It is rather the opinion of the Commissioners, Mr. Dickinson, that, as it comes in onl3' incidentally, and is not a part of the foundation of the case, it is not necessary to re-print it. Do the Counsel desire to have it re-printed? Mr. Dickinson!—We desire to have it go into the appendix, 3'our Honour, in connection with this schedule that has been put in. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Can the counsel furnish the Secretary with a copy of it, so it can be marked as an exhibit? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of 1he> United States:—This will go in as exhibit No. 1, Claim 1, U. S. Mr. Dickinson:—The parts I call attention to are at page 393 top paging, page 394, omitting the four paragraphs on that page, the last two paragraphs on page 395, omitting all before it on that page, and then pages 396, 397 and 398 should be read in. I do not care to read this at this point, unless your Honours desire it; it will go into the record, and will be referred to in the argument. I will not take time to read it in connection with the cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest3r:—It is to be taken as though 3'ou read over those passages 3'ou referred to, and asked the witness if he read them, and he said yes. Mr. Dickinson:—Ye-s, your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Of course the counsel will have to see that the copy furnished the printer has this paging, as unless it does, it will not be understood. Let the exhibit show the same paging as it is in the printed book. The stenographer's notes and the exhibit will then connect with each other. James Douglas Warren called by Great Britain and sworn: Direct exinaination by Sir Hibbert Tapper: IO 20 40 50 60 227 (Addressing Commissioners): I propose to examine the witness shortly on the question of value, and, with the permission of the Commissioners, to c'all him again at a subsequent stage on the question of the average catch, or the prospective catch, and I think that arrangement will be more convenient, both for the Commissioners and in the arrangement of the evidence. Q.—Mr. Warren, you were born in Prince Edward Island, I believe? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Y'ou came out somewhere about 1856 from California, and from thence to British Columbia, did you not? A.—1856 to California and 1858 to British Columbia. Q.—Y'ou went into mining first? A.—A little. Q.—Then what did 3'ou take up? A.—Took up the'water business mostly. Q.—You hold a master mariner's certificate? A.—Y'es. Q.—When did you begin boating, as you call it, in British Columbia? A.—1863, about 1863. Q.—From that time down to 1886 you were more or less concerned with ships, were you not? A.—Yes. Q.—During that period will you tell me how many vesse you owned; names of them, for instance? A.—The "Thornton" was the first one I had of any size, then I had the "Scout" afterwards, the "Helen," and I owned the "Leon A.," a sloop, a small steamer called the "Leviathan," half a steamer called the "Grappler," and a third of a steamer called the "Gertrude," and then I got the "Anna Beck." Q.—Did you own the "Anna Beck"? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you own the "Leon A."? A.—Yes. Q.—And were part owner in other vessels? A.—Y'es. Q.—Was the "Sayward" one of those? A.—She was. Q.—The Barbara Boscowitz"? A.—Part owner of the "Barbara Boscowitz." Q.—And the "Grappler"? A.—And the "Grappler." Q.—What interest had 3-ou in the "Gertrude"? A.—About a. quarter. Then I had the "Dolphin" and "Grace." Q.—Now how many of these vessels did you build? Did. you re-build the "Thornton"? A.—I re-built the "Thornton." Q.—What did you do with the "Grace"? A.—Built her. Q.—How about the "Dolphin"? A.—Built her. Q.—And the "Anna Beck"? A.—r re-built her. Q.—Had vou anything to do with the construction of the "Sayward"?" A.—Yes. Q.—And the "Barbara Boscowitz"? A.—Yes, built her. Q.—What about the "Grappler"? A.—I bought her. Q.—Some of those vessels were not used in sealing at all, were they? A.—Some of them were not. Q.—Which were those? A.—The "Grappler," the "Gertrude," the "Barbara Be>scowitz." Q.—Was the "Leon A." used in sealing? A.—No. Q.—Did you mention the "Leviathan" ? A.—The "Leviathan" in the same way. Q.—Now what sort of a vessel was tl witz"? A.—Well, freighting vessel. Q.—But was she sail, or steam? A.—Steam. Q.—I put before you "Claim No. 1. Exhibit No. produced by the Collector to-day; will you look down the columns there, and mention those vessels that 3'ou have spoken about, if there are any others that you have had anything to do with? A.—Shall I call out them vessels that I have had to do with? Q.—Yes. A.—(Referring . to Exhibit No. 16) The "Do phin," "Grace," "Anna Beck," "Sayward," "Thornton." I be lieve that is all. Mr. Peters:—Therefi&ro iwo columns there. Barbara Bo G 3o 4Q 50 60 Q.—Go through both columns, please. A.—There is one here called the "Bonanza"; I had forgotten her; "Mary Tav- lor." Q.—Did 3'ou own that vessel? A.—Yes. (J.—You had to do with her? A.—Yes, had to do with her. (J.—The "Rustler"? A.—And the "Rustler." Q.—When was she lost? A.—She was lost in the spring of 1887. Q.—Now, if you will look at that list you will see that some of these vessels were cleared for sealing. Go over the list carefully again, please, and state which of these vessels went to Behring sea, or were engaged in sealing in Behring sea in that year, 1886? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What vessels do you mean; those that he owned? Sir Hibbert Tupper:—Y'es, he had to do with a great many of these. [he Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you mean those he owned, or those on the whole list? Sir Hibbert Tupper:—I think he is able to tell us which of those vessels were in Behring Sei Witness:—The "Pathfinder." She was in Behring Sea that vear; the "Dolphin"; the "Grace" was there; the "Anna Beck," "Sayward," the "Alfred Adams," the "Favorite." The "Black Diamond," I don't remember her going there in '86, nor the "Theresa." Q.—What about the "Active" ?A.—I am not sure about the "Active." The "Kate" I don't, think was. The "Thornton" was there, the "Onward," the " Carolena.' The "Waneta" I don't remember. The "Spring Vale," the "Winnifred" I don't think was there. Q.—The "Triumph," was she in the sea? A.—I couldn't be sure. Q.—The "Wanderer"? A.—I think the "Triumph" was there in 1887, not in 1886. Q.—What about the "Wanderer?" A.—I don't hardly think she was there. Q.—What about the "Helena"? A.—I don't remember. Q.—Was she in the sea? A.—I don't hardly think it. Q.—"Minnie"? A.—I don't remember her being there. Q.—The "Henrietta"? A.—Nor the "Henrietta." Q.—The "Stevens," do you remember her? A.—I don't remember. Q.—The "Bonanza"? A.—Wasn't there. Q.—The "Grade"? A.—I don't think she was there in 1886. Q.—The "Mary Taylor?" A.—The "Mary Taylor" wasn't there in 1886. Q.—The "Mountain Chief"? A.—I think she was there. Q.—The "Rustler"? A.—The "Rustler" wasn't there. Q.—The "Viva"? A.—I don't hardly think she was there in 1886. Q.—The "Sapphire"? A.—I don't think the "Sapphire" was. Q.—"Triumph"? A.—The "Triumph" either. Q.—Nor the "Maggie Mac"? A.—No. Q.—Well, you have told us the vessels 3'ou owned over this period, and those that 3'ou have had to do with in the way of building and constructing. Did you know the "Carolena"? A.—Y'es, I knew the "Carolena" very well. Q.—Do you remember when he was brought to British Columbia? A.—Well, I don't just remember the date, I remember I was here about the time. 229 Q.—Did you know for whom she was built? A.-^A person that we call Jimmie Jones. Q.—What was she used for first? A.—When she first came here, as near as I can remember, she carried coal. Q.—Did you see her when she came here? A.—Yes, I saw her at the time when she was carrying coal from Nanaimo here. Q.—Did you know her when Mr. Urquhart owned her? A. —I did. 10 Q-—And you did know her when she was in possession of the pilots? A.—I did. Q.—What did you know about the vessel? Have you examined her at all carefully, or did you see her frequently? A.—I have seen her frequently, yes. Q.—Are you able to speak positively in connection with the vessel as to her rig and build? A.—Yes, I should suppose so. Q.—What class of vessel was she? A.—She was a very good vessel, small sized, one of these sharp-built, sea-going 20 model. Q.—What was her standing as a vessel, for instance, as a sailer? A.—She was considered a very good sailer. Q.—In what condition was she in when the pilots had her? A.—Well, they spent a good deal of money on her, I think It was in 1884. Q.—You remember their repairing her? A.—I remember they put her on the ways, cut her in two, hauled the two ends apart, building a section in between. Q.—That was when Urquhart owned her? A.—That was 30 when Urquhart owned her. Q.—Did you see her when she was on the ways? A.—I did. Q—At that time? A.—I did. Q.—Did you see the work that was done? A.—I did. Q.—Did you see her when she was finished? A.—I don't remember of examining her after she was finished; I examin- eel her when she was opened out, and when they were building her up. Q.—Did you see her after she was finished? A.—I did. 40 Q.—And in 1886 did 3'ou know the vessel? A.—Yes, I saw her in 1886, I was aboard of her. Q.—What would that vessel as she stood ready for sea, be worth in your opinion? A.—Then I considered the vessel worth $4,000. Q.—You thought that a fair value? A.—I thought that a fair value at that time. Q.—During this period that you have mentioned that you were in British Columbia, what did you do with your ships? A.—0, I was sealing and freighting and such things. ' Q.—Where did you seal for the first period? A.—Sealed on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Q.—And when did you extend your sealing operations? A. —Well, I didn't go info Behring Sea not until 1886. I sent a vessel in 1885, but the captain and mate had a disagreement, and they didn't get there. Q.—And in 1885 you turned your attention to Behring'Sea for the first time? A.—I did. Q.—And what do you say about the vessel sent there? A. t)° The captain and mate disagreed about something and they spoiled the trip, came back without going there. Q.—What vessels did you take 3'ourself into Behring Sea after that? A.—Well, the "Grace," the "Dolphin," "Anna Beck" and "Thornton" in 1886. Q.—And before that time are you able to say whether those engaged in the sealing business in British Columbia were in the habit of going to BehSg Sea before 1885? A.—Ye-s. If II 111 11 20 30 40 50 60 there was, I think the "Mary Ellen" was in the sea about 1884 and 1885. Q.—Well, with the exception of the "Mary Ellen" I ask you whether those who were engaged in sealing—prosecuting that industry—were in the habit of going to that sea before 1885? A.—Outside of that, I think not.' There was an American vessel or two. Q.—When did the sealing business open in Behring sea? A.—1886 was the first year then of any note in Behring sea. Q.What effect had the opening of that district, or those waters, upon the sealing venture? First as to time, before that how much of the year? A.—We spent before that about three months. Q.—Then with the Behring sea work, how much more additional time in the year could you keep your vessels running? A.—We run the time up then to eight or nine months. Q.—What effect had that upon the value of the vessels? A.—Here it made the vessels come more in demand. Q.—Increased the value? A.—Increased the value. Q.—On account of the increased employment, is that so? A.—Yes, that is so. Q.—What happened in connection with the increase of shipping here? Where were the ships obtained after this? A.—Well, they were obtained in different places, but principally in Nova Scotia. Q.—But when did they first commence to come in from outside, so to speak? A.—1886 is the first year I think. Q.—And you told me some of the names of the vessels that came in 1886 to register in this port for this business? Mr. Dickinson:—From Nova Scotia ? Sir Hibbert Tupper:—From outside. Q.—Can you give me some of the names that you knew in 1886? A.—The "Pathfinder" came here from Nova Scotia, "Penelope" from Japan, the "Sierra" came here from San Francisco, a very old vessel. Q—Any other one? A.—The "Theresa;"I think she came from across the Sound here, a very good vessel. Q.—And the "Rustler"? A.—Bought the' "Rustler," Wrecked on the beach here in December, I think, 1886—in December, J.885. Q.—She was lost in 1887, wasn't she? A.—She was lost in 1887. The "Triumph," as near as I can remember, came in from Nova Scotia in 1886. Q.—And from that date? A.—In 1887 the "Ada" came in. Q.—I will not trouble the Commissioners with going over the names, but from that date, did the fleet increase? A.— Kept increasing very fast. A.—And where was that supply obtained? A.—Principally Nova Scotia, on account of the fishing vessels there being better adapted for the sealing business—fishing vessels of the East. Q.—Now, Captain Warren, are you able to say whether these vessels 3'ou have named as having been brought in from time to time, were on the market for sale, or were they brought here by those interested in the sealing business for sealing purposes? A.—I think, so far as 1 know, they were all brought here for sealing. Q.—And by those directly-interested. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q-—Captain Warren, when did you say that schooners began to go into Behring sea? A.—My schooners? Q.—Schooners from this port? A.—As far as I know, about 1884, according to my recollection. Q.—In 1885 there were vessels in from this port? A.—I think there was two, if not more; two is about all I remember. IO 20 30 40 50 <5o 231 Q.—In 1886 they were in the sea? A.—Well, there was several in 1886. Q.—Now in regard to the 3*ear 1886 will 3'ou state from that exhibit that has been shown you (referring to "Claim No. l. Exhibit No. 16, G.B."i how many vessels were brought into this port from San Francisco? A.—What year? Q.—1886? Sir Hibbert Tupper:—Y'ou mean as shewn by that list? Mr. Lansing:—As shewn by that list. Wieness:—(Examining list) The "Theresa" here; but I know she was brought from the Sound, she is the first name notice, but I think she was brought from Seattle, I am under the impression. Q. —Was that the only American ship in 1886 in this port? A.—I see some names here, American vessels that were brought here before that year. Q.—How mam' of them? A.—The "Mary Ellen"— Q.—No, how many? A.—Well, I don't know, I think can take out about 12 in the whole list coming from the United States at different times. Sir Hibbert Tupper:—What years are you asking about? Mr. Lansing:—1886 and 1887. Witness:—Prior to 1886 and 1887, some of thes,? were in several 3'ears before. Q -How many from Kfdv/a Scotia in that same period? A. Pome of these vessels I can't from memory state where 1I103- did come from. Sir Hibbert Tupper:—It appears in the column opposite. Q.—Well, t'aptain. in your direct examination 3-011 said that the majority of vessels that were brought to this port came from Nova Scotia in the years 1886 and 1887? A.—The majority in 1886 and 1887. Q.—The majority of the vessels came from Nova Scotia, that were brought from outside ports? A.—The majority' of the vessels thai were brought in. Q.—In those 3rears? A.—In those years, I think so. Q.—The American vessels were then brought in years before? A.—Yes, the most of them. Q.—Now, how many vessels were brought in from Nova Scotia in the year 1886? A.—think there was only about two or three in 1886. Q.—How mam-? A.—I couldn't say positive how many, I know of some. Q.—Was there more than the "Pathfinder"? A.—I believe the "Triumph" come in that 3'ear, and the "Pathfinder." Q.—What time in the 3'ear? A.—I don't know. Q.—Did she seal that year? A.—I am not sure, but I think she did. Q-—Wasn't she brought around in the winter? A.—I couldn't sa3r, I wasn't interested in her; but I am under the impression thai she sealeel thai year. Q.—How long. Captain, was the sealing season prior to 1886? A.—How many months do 3rou mean? Q.—Yes? A.—O, generally about three months. Q.^—When did it begin? A.—Well I used to begin on the first of March. Q.—No, when did the sealing season begin? A.—It could begin along in the winter. Q.—Diel not they do that on a good many vessels? A. --Some of them did. Q.—Did not a good many? A.—I couldn't say. II mull « U Q.—Don't you know of any vessels going out in 1886 before the first of March? A.—I think very likely there was. Q.—And in 1SS6 what time did the seasem commence? A. Well, the season would commence just about the same time any year. They would commence along about Christmas time, if they wished to. Q.—Y'ou said the first of March, I believe? A.—That was generally about my time, the first of March. Q.—And lasted three months? You swore to that in your 10 direct testimony? A.—I said three months was my ordinary r.eason before we went to' Behring sea, afterwards it ran up to about eight months, after we commenced to go into the sea. Q.—That was in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—Were your vessels out eight months in 1886? A.—I don't know as they were out quite, but they must have been very near. Q.—What time did they start that year? A.—In the neighborhood of the first of March. Q.—Was there one of those vessels that stayed out eight 20 months? A.—I don't know whether there was or not. Q.—Was there one that stayed out seven months? A.— Yes, I think so. Q.—Which one? A.—Well, I think the "Anna Beck" was out seven months, anyway. Q.—Was that the only one? A.—I know we came home early that year on account of the seizures; I did for one. Q.—Can you tell me that captain? A.—What is that? Q.—Was there a vessel out for seven months of your vessels? A.—I thought I had a memorandum here of the time 3° the vessels came back. Q.—Well, no matter about it, Captain, I suppose it will appear here on the records of the court. Now, in regard to the "Carolena," you speak of her as a good sailer, when she was in the hands of the pilots, and you valued her ready for sea at $4,000. Was that correct? A.—That was what I valued her after she was lengthened. Q.—Now, will you explain exactly what you mean by "ready for sea?" A.—Well, vessel "ready for sea" is when she is properly caulked, properly painted, anchors and chains, 4° everything necessary for a vessel to be seaworthy, not including any outif|p| Q.—Do you mean all the blacksmithing, ship chandlery; and that work, done completely for the season? A.—Yes. Q.—Do 3'ou include her sealing outfit? A.—No. Q.—There was one other question I wanted to ask you, Captain, with regard to the 3rears prior to 1885, whilst it is on my mind. Now prior to 1885 you said that the vessels were engaged but three months, what were they doing the rest of the time? A.—The sealing vessels? 5° Q.—Yes? A.—Well, the most of them were trading oil and skins and such things; some of them did freighting. Q.—Were they always occupied in that business? A.—No, I don't know that they all were. Q.—A majority of them? A.—Prior to 1886 I think a majority of them. Q.—And how did it increase their A'alue if they were employed all that time? A.—They could make more money sealing. sr- Q-—Did they make more money at sealing? A.—I think so, as a rule. Q.—Now to the return to the "Carolena"? You spoke of a sealing outfit; what do you mean by that? A.—Supplies aboard the vessel. Q.—Boats? .V.—Provisions, guns, ammunition, and anything necessary for supplies. Q.—Do you mean when you sa3r "ready for sea" sails packed and in order? A.—Yes. 10 20 40 5o 6o Q.—Ami painted? A.—Caulking and such things, everything repaired, all repairs made for the season. Q.—Now Captain, if the "Carolena" had to have, say a thousand shingles driven into her seams, what would you say about that. Would that be part of her outfit or would that also be included? A.—Sometimes it is necessary in the lining and the inside skin. Q.—That you would include as being ready for sea? A.— Sometimes it is a very good thing but I do not know. Q.—You do not quite understand me, would you include fJhat in her outfit, would you include that in the cost of her sealing outfit? A.—Well, sometimes you could drive shingles in the inside skin of the vessel and that would help her greatly in going to sea, it would stiffen her up. Q.—Do you think that is part of her sealing outfit? A.— I do not think ii is. Q.—Then if the "Carolena" had a quantity of shingles driven into her, you would say that you would include that in your $4,000 valuation? A.—If she needed it I would consider it so; if she required it. Re-direct examination by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper: Q.—Captain Wareu, yon were asked in reference to the vessels that came from San Francisco. For how many years did that supply last? A.—Well, there were odd vessels came from there for a number of years. Q.—When did it stop? A.—Well there has been an odd vessel I think coming along, but I do not just know when they did stop, there have been some since 1887. Q.—Well compared with the supply from the East which has formed the main market for bu3dng. A.—All after 1887, the bulk of the vessels came from the East. Q.—vYhat class of vessels were those as a rule that came from San Francisco? First as to age, and then as to the class generally. Were they poor vessels or good vessels? -V.—There were some good vessels coming from San Ifeincis- co and some of them pretty old vessels. Q.—Had you occasion to go to that market to look for them? A.—I went down there in the fall of 1870, I think, to buy a vessel and I had quite a big look among them. Q.—How do the class of vessels from that port compare with the class of vessels obtained from the East? A.—The most of the vessels in San Francisco are mostly built for freighting purposes, and with some exceptions not vessels that I should like well for the sealing business. Q.—But the vessels from outside, or rather the vessels which you got from the East, were, as a rule, built for fishing? A.—Yes, for fishing and sea going purposes. Q.—You were asked with reference to how long the vessels stayed out in 1S86, did these vessels you had to do with in 1886 stay out their full voyage, or did they come back,before the season for sealing was over? A.—I think that the most of them came back before. Q.—Do you know as a matter of fact what brought them home? A.—I know what brought me home, and that was the seizures. Q.—Oue vessel was seized in that season belonging to you, was she not? A.—Yrcs. Q.—And the other vessels came home soon after you arrived? A.—Some of them came shortly after. Q.—YVhat vessel did you come home on? A.—I came home on the fpolphin." Q. What time? A.—I left the sea on the 12th of August. Q.—Why did you leave? A.—On acount of the seizures. Q. You were asked as to whether these vessels made more money by sealing than in coasting, T want to ask you, Captain Warren, how many vessels had yon in 1886, sealing? You had the "Thornton," the "Anna Beck," the "Sayward," the "Rustler," and what other vessel, I think you "Grade" and the "Dolphin" making seven in had the A.—I did not was lost the 20 30 40 50 60 think I had only six. Q.—The "Thornton" was seized and tl into the sea at all? A.—No. Q.—Was she lost that year? A.—No, next year. Q.—The "Thornton" was seized and you came home, you have told us, earlier than you would have, had it not been for the seizure? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What profit did you obtain from that season's sealing, notwithstanding <tll these circumstances, what was made clear by you above the expenses? A.—Somewhere about $20,000. Q.—Could you make that much money coasting, or have you ever done it coasting at the same time and with the same vessels? A.—Not with the same vessels. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—In your statement of valuation of the "Carolena" you said she was worth $4,000 when ready to go to sea, would 3'ou include in that, $6.25 for repairs of three sails? A.—If it was put on the sails before she left, I should say so. Q.—Would you include in that also 8 3'ards of No. 5 duck? A.—Not if it was supplied for use afterwards. If it went on before she left and if it was needed I would include it. Q.—And would you include the twine? A.—It is the same thing. Q.—Would you include in that 221 pounds of castings? A. —I do not think so, I would include what the vessel required for making her seaworthy. Q.—Would you include the castings in making her ready for sea? A.—I should not include it as bearing on . her $4,000. Q.—Y'ou say youWould not? A.—No. Q.—Would you include it in the sealing outfit? A.—I do not know, myself, what it would be for. Q.—Would you include repairs to two stoves in your $4,- 000 estimate?' A.—Well, one stove at any rate, might belong to the sealing outfit, an ordinary vessel would not require two unless she was going sealing. Q.- -Don't they have one in the cabin and one in the forecastle? A.—It is not necessary to have two stoves unless they are sealing. Q.—Would you include zinc for the cabin floor? A.—That would be under the stove, I suppose. I think the vessel should be fitted with one stove and what is necessary for it. Q.—That would be included in the $4,000 ready for sea? A. 1 suppose so. Q.—Repairs to deck pipes and blacksmith repairs, would you include this also? A.—That all depends as to whether it was for the sealing crew, the vessel should have one stove complete. Q.—And what do you say as to the repairs to the deck pipes? A.—It might belong to the sealing crew. Q.—What do you mean? A.—For the convenience of the sealing crew. Any extra expense that has to be put to on account of the vessel going sealing, belongs, I think, to the sealing outfit. Q.—Would you include the windlass gear in your $4,000 ready for sea, I should suppose the windlass gear belonged to the vessel. Q.—And three straps for tanks, what would you say about that? A.—That must belong to the outfit. Q.—What part of the outfit? .A.—They have to carry a big lot of water and an extra supply of casks when they are going sealing and consequently it belongs to' the sealing outfit. 20 235 Q-—"Two stands for steering gear," would you consider that part of the sealing outfit also? A.—I should not think so. Q.—Then there is here an item for a tiller, is that part of the sealing outfit? A.—I should suppose if they are for the steering gear they would be for the vessel. Q.—"Screw bolts and a traveller," etc., as you see stated there. Do these belong to the sealing outfit? A.—They don't look'to me like it. 10 Q-—^wo staples," is that part of the sealing outfit? A.— I think you mentioned two staples before, but if they were needed for the steering wheel they might be, or they might belong to the vessel. Q.—It says "2 staples for wheel," is that part of the sealing outfit? A.—I should not expect it, but I could not say abou it. Q.—A "10-inch monkey wrench," is that part of the sealing outfit? A.—I don't hardly know what they would want it for. Q.—Would it belong to the schooner or to the sealing outfit. A.—I don't think it necessarily belongs to the schooner. Q.—And 12 pountis of American rope? A.—If it were on board as stores it would be extra. Q.—What would it be used for in the sealing outfit? A.— My valuation e>f the vessel is not for supplies to run her for a year or two or for six months or anything of that kind, it is just for the vessel, you might carry supplies on a vessel for I'.ny length of time. Q.—Is not this getting her ready to go to sea each season? 30 A.—If it was put on the vessel to get her in running gear before she left it would belong to the vessel. Q.—One coil of rope 30 pounds? Would you say that was part of the sealing outfit? A.—It might not be, it very likely ivas for supplies. Q.—Now, with regard to the item for pump leather, was that part of the sealing outfit? A.—That might be extra supplies that belonged to the vessel. Q.—"2-inch American rope 14 pounds.'" is that part of the sealing outfit? A.—No, I should say that was for supplies, and was rove off before she left. Q.—Would it be customary on a settling vessel of that size to carry as much rope as that for supplies? A.—O, yes, geiing for a long voyage 3'ou woulel require' quite a considerable quantity of rope, and spare canvas too. Captain Warden, I will show^'oii Voucher No. 11 of Exhibit 10, this is a lull from McQuade & Sons, and I would ask 3*ou to run over these items in it and say what they are for. A. —If these were carried as spare stuff for supplies, of course they would be extra to the valuation, but that I cannot say. 50 Q.—Well, now, Captain, is that part of the sealing outfit which is included in that bill? A.—No, I should say that was for supplies for the vessel during the voyage. Q.—All that bill, amounting to $91.09, was for supplies? A.—A vessel's own supplies ought to amount to more than that. Q.—Would labour in repairing the vessel, repairfifg her hull, be included in her sealing outfit? No, not repairing the vessel before she left; there is labour on the vessel in addition to that in fitting her up for sealing and making her con- 60 venient to carry a crowd of people. Q.—I suppose that would not be the case if she had been used the year before for sealing? A.—Well, her fittings for that purpose might be taken out. Q.—Would it be natural that these fittings would be taken out? A.—Frequently they are taken out; the vessel cannot go into freighting without taking them out. Q.—Would you say that labour on a vessel amounting to $50 would be part of her sealing outfit? A.—It might be. 40 I! Q.—Does the Captain of a vessel generally buy his own chronometer? A.—I think so; sometimes. Q.—Is it a usual custom? A.—I do not know whether it is a usual custom or not. Q.—You have been a large ship owner and you have several daims before this Commission? .V.—I have several. Q.—How many? A.—Five, I think. Q,—Now, is it customary for the captain to bring his own chronometer on board? A.—Sometimes they do and some- 10 times they do not; if I furnished a chronometer to a captain " would hold the captain personalh' responsible for it. Q.—I will show you now Voucher No. 9, of Exhibit 10, a bill from John Robinson. Will you look over that bill and show me the items which were for sealing outfit; I wish you to point out the' items that belong to the sealing outfit? A.— There is one item there which I think is included. Q.—You can onl3' name one item that you are really satisfied about? A.—That is all I can see. Q.—There is only one that you are satisfied with? 20 Sir Charles Hibbert Tipper:—Satisfied as to what? Mr. Lansing:—Satisfied that it belongs to the sealing outfit. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What is the nature of that voucher, what is the amount of it? Mr. Lansing:—The amount of it is $50. The Commisioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is that a ship chandler's bill? Mr. Lansing:—It is of that nature. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—What is 30 the total of that bill? Mr. Lansing:—$54.66. (To witness.) Q.—I now show 3'ou Voucher No. 6 of Exhibit 10, a bill for $83, it is a bill for ship chandlery mainl3r. Will you point out the items in that bill that belong to the sealing outfit? A.—There are a number of compases used for outfit, but I do not know whether the one stated there is one of them or not. Q.—Read out the items that yon are sure belong to the seaSg outfit? A.—1 think that bill probably all belongs to Hie sealing outfit. Q.—That part of it amounting to $37 was for sealing outfit? A—Yes. Q.—There are two bills attached to that same voucher. Read the second bill attached to it; Exhibit No.-10, and see how much of that belongs to the sealing outfit? A.—It seems to me that part of it belongs to the sealing outfit, and part of it belongs to the supplies of the vessel for the voyage. Q.—That is the best you can say. Y'ou cannot point out 50 the sealing outfit? A.—I could point out some of .them, there are lines and hooks and different things there, that I know must belong to the sealing outfit. Q.—1 wish you to read them out? A.—The rope might be used for the vessel or it might be used, some of it, for the sealing outfit, and the seaming palm might belong to the vessel, the copper tacks, the hoops, the line thread rope, the cod lines are for the sealing outfit, and I think the rest of it would be for supplies. r Q.—Captain, 1 have shown you several of these vouchers, have you ever seen them before? A.—I do not think that I perused them, but I may have seen them before; that is, 1 do not think I have perused the items particularly. Q.—Where did you get your information when you made out the claim for the "Carolena" in Ottawa on the 28th of November, 1887? A.—I very likely made them from vouchers; I made them from the totals of the vouchers, I suppose, but I do not think I went through them very particularly. *5/ 20 Q.—Will 3'ou swear you ever saw these vouchers before? A.—It would be pretty hard for me to do that. A pile of vouchers were sent to me, but whether these are the same or not I would not like to swear. Q.—What did 3'ou do with these vouchers? A.—I sent them back or brought them back, as near as I remember; 1 would not be sure, but I know they should have come back. Q.—It was from these vouchers that you made up the price of groceries in the bill at $598.60? A.—I do not remember IO just how it was. I do not know whether I used the vouchers or not, or whether I made it up from the statement. Q.—I show you the case of Great Britain before the Fur Seal Arbitration, at page 137, American Edition, marginal paging 4, Exhibit "A." "Value of the schooner 'Carolena' at the time of seizure—groceries, $598.60." How did you make up that. Captain? A.—From memory now I can hardly say. Mr. Belyea and I were making them up. Q.—Mr. Belye^a was with you at Ottawa? A.—He was with me at Ottawa. Q.— Did you have these same vouchers there? A.—I had a lot of vouchers there, but whether these are the same or not I elo not know. Q.—Did you make up the ammunition account in the same way, from vouchers? A.—I do not remember of going through the vouchers at all. Q.—Did you make up the value of the shotguns from the vouchers? A.—I do not know that I did from the vouchers; I rather think that I did it from the statement. Q.—Who made up ihe statement? A.—It was sent to me, I suppose it was by Mr. Munsie. I am under the impression that it was made from the statement, but the vouchers were sent on, I know that. Q.—You swore to this statement, did you? A.—I suppose I stated to the best of my knowledge. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—That is a solemn declaration. It is hardly right to put it in the way you do; it is a solemn declaration to ihe best of his information and belief. I am anxious that the record should show the document that you 4° are examining him about, and it does not appear to me that it will do that, unless you make the statement that it is a solemn declaration. This document is the declaration of J. D. Warren beginning, "I solemnly and sincerely declare as follows." 30 SO 6o By Mr. Lansing: Q.—Did you make up all these items from vouchers? A. —To the best of my recollection, I do not remember going through the voeichers. Q.—You didn't go through the vouchers? A.—I cannot say, it is so long ago. Whether I used the vouchers to check off the statement or not, I cannot say. Mr. Belyea was with me at the time, and I suppose he was the principal one in making them up. . Q.—Did 3'ou have a statement from Mr. Munsie of all these items? A.—I think so. I think I had a statement from all of them. Q.—Y'ou did not retain that? A.—No, whatever I had I left them there I Hiink. Q.—Please look at this document entitled "Statement of the ' Carolena,,' November 2m h, 1887," and say if that is your statement? A.—I believe it is a statement of mine. Q.—Exhibit "A" of page 3, of the Appendix, British Case. Is that your statement? A.—It is very hard for me to remember the amounts. Q.—And what about the remainder of Exhibit "A" is that yours? A.—I expect it is. 40 5o 60 238 Q.—I read 3'ou Article 7, of statement of the British case, being the Appendix of the Schedule of claims, and I ask you if 3'ou made the following statement, in the declaration made by you on the 2Sth day of November in the City of Ottawa. The following is the statement: "7. That hereto annexed, marked 'A,' is a statement of the articles comprising the outfit of the schooner "Carolena" on her departure on her said voyage, and all of which I verily believe were on board the "Carolena" at the time of her seizure, excepting only what had been consumed in the ordinary course of the voyage, together with the value of said articles also of the amount of premiums paid for insurance on the hull, outfit and cargo of the said "Carolena" for the said voyage; also of the amount of wages paid to the crew and hunters on board the "Carolena" up to the time of such seizure; also the expenses of the mate; and part of the crew in returning to the city of Yie-toria from Ounalaska and Sitka, and also a statement of the number of seal skins on board the "Carolena at the time of said seizure and the value thereof." Did vou make' that statement or declaration? A.—I believe I did. Q.—Is Exhibit "A" which I now read the schedule referred to: EXHIBIT (A.) Aralue of schooner "Carolena" at the time of seizure $4,000.00 Outfit:— Groceries $598.60 Amunition 173.34 Six shot guns 300.00 Five rifles 130.00 Gun implements and tools 17.29 Dry goods 71.37 Ship chandlery 376.83 Water casks.'. 12.00 Chronometer 160,000 Four canoes anel outfit 248.50 One boat 100.00 Salt 81.00 Coal and wood for fuel 37.62 Cooking stove and utensils 79.00 Miscellaneous \S.2A Cash on board and unaccounted for 500.00 Sextants, two 75 Total 3,002.89 Insurance premium and survey fee on $2,500 on hull and $1,000 on outfit and cargo.. 352.50 Wages paid to hunters and crews for v03T- age up to time of seizure 1,832.22 Part of crew having been sent to San Francisco b3' United States authorities board for five men at San Francisco and passage money thence to Victoria.. .. ' 71.72 Passage mones' and expense of mate, James Blake from Sitka to Victoria after release from prison 100.00 2,003.94 686 seal skins on board the "Carolena" when seized and not returned, at $7 per skin. $4,802.00 Total Exhibit (A) $14,161.33 Q.—Did you declare to thai? A.—Yes, T suppose I did. Re-direct examination by Sir Charles H. Tupper: 39 IO 20 30 40 50 60 Q.—Mr. Warren, in giving your opinion as to the value of the "Carolena" did you include these items which would come in under the head of supplies or outfits? A.—No. Q.—Referring to some of the vouchers that were put in 3'our hands, and the question to you as to whether these items were chargeable to the outfit account of the supply account or the construction account; let me take for instance about the two ropes and tanks. It is possible in making out an account for various vessels that you would find these items in both supply account and outfit account for a sealing vessel? A.—Some of them you would find in both. Q.—And to definitely state whether these would appear in any single case, one 7nust have the particular fact in mind, is that right? A.—Yes, that is right. Q.—In regard to your going to Ottawa and acting for Mr. Munsie, what year was that? A.—In the latter part of 1887. Q.—Now, take this declaration about which you were examined and state of what date is that? A.—28th of November, 1887. Q.—When you went to Ottawa had you previously- conferred with the owners of different vessels that had been seized. A.—I did here in Victoria. Q.—Had you gone carefully into the facts relating to the seizures. A.—Well, I suppose we had talked it over con-' siderably. Q.—But not into the items? A.—No, not into the items. Q.—What were you requested to do when you went to Ottawa so far as Mr. Munsie was concerned? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Sir Charles, how many times is this witness going to be examined? Are you not opening up a new topic now? Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—No, j'our Honour, I think my learned friend, Mr. Lansing, will agree with me that this is a matter arising out of his cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I' merely ask you if you are not opening a new subject, and if you are not I have nothing to say. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—I am simply examining on a point brought out for the first time on the cross-examination of nry learned friend, Mr. Lansing. If there was any irregularity it was in nry learned friend going into the matter on cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—My only object was to save time. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—I only desire to show how Captain Warren came to make this declaration and the propriety of every statement he made. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is evidence that is pertinent. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—To do that I must bring Captain Warren to Victoria before we get to Ottawa anel see under what circumstances he made this statement on his information and belief. (To the witness.) Q.—Captain Warren, before going to Ottawa on that occasion, I nnde-rst a ml you to say yon saw Mr. Munsie, and others interested in the vessels that had been seized, is that right? A.—Yes. Q.—What were you requested by them to do? A.—Well, in the first place, each of the claimants made out their own statements here, and I think they were all sent on to Ottawa we consulted afterwards, and concluded that it was best for Triii'ir i n"irni«iriMiiMaaWliHiiii 240 some person to go there, so that, if there was any other information wanted a person could be on the spot to give it, and I was selected. Q.—To what place in Ottawa did you take such information as you had? A.—To the Government. Q.—Who assisted 3rou there in preparing these claims. A. —Mr. Belyea. Q.—And an officer of the department? A.—I don't hardly think there was. Mr. Belyea was recommended to me by 10 the Honourable Mr. Foster. Q.—Did not an officer of the department assist you in preparing the claims? A.—I think we had the most of it to do ourselves. Q.—Mr. Belyea was at that time counsel was he not? A. —He was, yes, and is still, I think. Q.—And the result of that was in connection with the case of the "Carolena," that 3'ou were advised to make this solemn declaration about which you have been examined? A.—Yes. Q.—Mi*. Lansing read Section 7, which states certain facts 20 on your belief. Looking at that document, are there not other paragraphs in that declaration also on your information and belief, and also stating that you were informed by AVilliam Munsie e>f the accuracy of certain charges in the statement, Exhibit "A" that was read to you? A.—Yes. Q.—ffliat is so? A.—Y'es. Q.—From whom was this information obtained. For instance when you state 'That this statement comprise!: the outfit of the schooner, and all of which I verily believe,' was that a bald statement of your own, or had you information on 3° it? A.—ThatlS'as information from Mr. Munsie. Q.—From Mr. Munsie direct? A.—Yes. Examination of Mr. Warren closed. Charles Spring, of the City of Victoria, a witness produe:ed on behalf of Great Britain, was duly sworn: Direct examination by Mr. Beique: Q.—Mr. Spring, where do you reside? A.—In Victoria. 40 Q.—How long have you lived in Victoria? -V.—All nt)' life almost. Q.—I believe 3Tou are in the sealing business anel have been for a number of yearsjR A.—I have been up to four years ago. Q.—When did you commence to be interested in the sealing business? A.—In the summer of 1884. Q.—And up to four years ago you remaineel in that business? A.—Continuously. Q.—I believe v'ou owned a number of sealing schooners, did 5° you. A.—I did. Q.—Take the communication in Exhibit 16, and state in which of these schooners therein mentioned you were interested in 1886 and 1887? A.—Three. Q.—Which were' they? A.—The "Favorite" the "Kale" and the "Onward." Q.—Was the "Kate" in Behring Sea in 1886? A.—No. Q.—Was she in Behring Sea in 1887? A.—I will not be positively certain, but I think she was. Q.—Do you know any of the schooners which are mention- 00 ed in that exhibit, 16, and which cleared for Behring Sea, and which did not go to Behring Sea; c-an 3'ou mention one besides the "Kate?" A.—I cannot speak aboul Ihe others. I am only sure about "Kate." She was not in there in 1S86. Q.—Were the vessels in which you were interested for sale in 1886 or in 1887. A.—Not that I was directly interested in. No. Q.—Did you know the Carolena in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—What occasion had 3'ou of knowing her? A.—Well just by seeing her go in and out of the harbor, and meeting her down on the west coast at times. Q.—Were you ever on her? A.—Yes. Q.—Had you sufficient knowledge of the "Carolena "to form an opinion as to her value? A.—Yes. Q.—What did you consider her value for sealing purposes to her owner then? A.—At that time I would certainly say she was worth any where iu the neighborhood of $3,800 or 10 $4,000. Q.—Will you state from your experience what is the value of mattresses and bedding used by a white crew on sealing schooners, that is generally speaking? A.—Used by the men? Q.—Yes, owned and used by the men? A.—They might vary, the mattress would be valued at anything from $5 to $10. In depended on what the men felt like spending. Q.—That is $5 or $10 for each man? A.—Yes, for each man. 20 Mr. Bieque:—We would like to reserve the right to recall this witness on the question of catch. We do not propose to examine him now on that question. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Were there any mattresses on the "Carolena?" A.— 1 think it was very likely, but I do not know positively. Q.—Do you know anything about it? A.—No. 30 Q. -Usually the men furnish their own bedding on a sealing schooner, don't they? A.—Yes. Q.— They were not a part of the ship's equipment were they? A.—Well no, not to my knowledge. Q.—Y'ou are a claimant here, are you not before this commission? A.—Yes. Q — How many claims are you interested iu? A.—Five. Q.—When were yon on the "Carolena?" A. --In 1^">. Q.—Before she was a sealer? A.—It was in the spring of 1886, f think. 4° Q.—Where was she then? A.—She was in Yiclori.t here. It was while she was at anchor, before leaving I was also on her down on the coast. Q.—Where abouts on the west coast? A.—New Chatez. Q.—What time in 1886? A.—Early in the spring, I should think about April. Q.—Had you sailed down there? A.—Yes. Q.—On what? A.—On some of my own schooners, I do not know exactly which one. I went on some of my vessels. Q.—Was that as late as February or March of that year? 5° A.—I would not say, but it was somewhere in the neighborhood of March or April. Q-—You could not fix the date you went down there on your schooner? A.—No. Q.—Can you fix the date you went on board the "Carolena"? A.—Yes. Q-—What part of the ship did you go on when 3'ou went on the "Carolena"? A.—I went on the deck. Q.—Were you in the cabin? A.—Yes, I was in the cabin Q.—Did you look into the hold? A.—No. 60 Q.—Did you examine her rigging? A.—I did not examine her, but I made my judgment by actual observation. Q.—You didn't go on board to see what she was worth? A.—Oh. no, just simply to meet somebody. Q.—Y'ou just went down there to meet some one else? A. —That was all. Q.—You did not examine her timbers? A.—I examined Mr in no way whatever, I just went on board to see some one. 16 Q —Was the "Carolena" trading down there? A.—Yes. Q.—What was the "Carolena" doing there? A.—I think she was there engaged in the first place in taking goods down to the trading post. Q.—That was February or March, 1886. A.—About that time. Bl| it as late as March? A.—I think so. Q.—And she was then engaged in this place down on the coast of Vancouver Island, about how many miles from here? io A.—About 200. Q.—She was engaged there as late as March taking goods down to the trading post? A.—Y'es. Q.—Y'our father has 1 trading post there. A.—No, Mr. Munsie has. Q.—Mr. Munsie has got a trading post at this place about 200 miles from here? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you see any goods unloaded from the "Carolena" at that point? A.—No. Q.—Did you see any goods put aboard of her? A.No. 20 Q-—How long were you at this port during the occasion of that visit in March? A.—Two or three days.. 0.—Was Mr. Munsie there? A.—No. (j.—Did 37ou see any gooels from the "Carolena" at the trading post? A.—Well, I saw goods there, and I judged i.hey must be from her. Q.—What goods did 3'ou see landed there? A.—Merchandise of all sorts used in Indian trade. Q.—Could you give us any idea of what kind of merchandise it wps? A.—Flour, sugar, biscuits, &c. ,0 Q.—Anyffing else? A.—Similar goods, such as various kinds of clothing. Q.--rilot bread and that sort of thing. A.—Yes. Q.—Pilot bread is a frequent article of trade used in trading with the Indians, is it not? A.—Yes. Q.—Pilot bread is very rarely used as part of the stores of 0. sealing vessel. It is used more often for trading with the Indians than it is on a sealing vessel? A.—Well, I used to furnish it all the time. Q.—For trading or for sealing purposes? A.—For sealing purposes. Q.—For Indians or for white men? A.—For both white men and for Indians. Q—It is not a favorite article of diet for white hunters? A.—There is no particular objection especially among the Indiana. Q.~-Did vou see some pilot bread here that 3'ou estimated was landed from the "Carolena" from this particular trading post? A.—Y'es. Q.—Now, who was there on the "Carolena" that you visited? A—Owen Thomas. ii.—What was his duties on the "Carolena"? A.—I think he was master. Q.— In ISHi? A.—Yes Q.--Thal is before she went on her sealing vo3'age to Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—And as late' as March you think? A.—Yes. Q.—Dei 1 on know where Owen Thomas is now? A.—No, I do not. Q.—Is he a resident of Victoria? A.—Yes. Q.—lie lives here now? A.—Yes. 60 Q.—And he was there on the "Carolena" in March. 1S86, a I I'ua I 1 rading post? A.—Yes, as near as I can remember. Q.—Did he tell you what he came up to this trading post for in the spring of 1886? A.—No. ().—When did you go to see her, or rather whom did you go Io see on board the "Carolena"? A.—It was just a matter ;>f a visit I paid her, that was all. 40 5o 243 0.— Did you have any talk with the Captain as to about how long he would stay or what he was doing there'' A.— No, I concluded I knew well enough. It was a matter with Dim of getting ready for sailing as soon as possible. Q.—Y'ou knew he was coming back to Victoria? A.—No, I did not. Q.—You did not enquire? A.—No. Q.—Did you see any boats going to and from the "Carolena." Is there a wharf at this trading post? A.—No io there is not. Q.—When they loaded or unloaded, they would have to go out in small boats to the "Carolena?" A.—Yes. Q.—Did you see any boats going to and from the "Carolena" while you were there ? A.—I would not say that I did. Q.—Would you say that you did not? What is your best belief about that? A.—It is very likely. There must have been some, without my making an observation of it. Q.—Where did you stay at this trading post yourself? Was it on your own schooner? A.—We were travelling in 20 canoes at the time, so that I had to stay ashore at night. Q.—Were you there when the "Carolena" put out of the port? A-—Yes. Q.—Do you know in what direction she sailed? A.—She went right out to sea. Q.—Did you see an3* Indians about her at the time she was there? A.—On board her? Q.—Yes? A.—I did not observe at all. I simply knew she was going to sea and I made no particular observations. Q.—Do you know of her buying any canoes there at the 30 time . Did the "Carolena" buy any canoes there while you were there and up to the time you saw her go out? A.— She must have had canoes but I do not know of'any buying. Q.—Did you see any when you visited her? Did you see any on her decks? A.—No she did not have any then. Q.—Did you see any canoes about her or in the water about her? A.—No more than ordinary passing canoes. Q.—They would be employed in the ordinary traffic be tween her and the shore? A.—Yes. Q.—Where were you when she sailed? A.—I was ashore 40 some where. Q.—You saw her sai I ? A.—Yres. Q.—Had you been on her that day? A.—No, not that day. Q.—Had you been on her the day before? A.—No, but on the day before that again. Q.—Your father was interested in trading there too ? A.— He had been, but not at that time. Q.—Do you know anything about the price of canoes at that point at that time? A.—No. Q.—Y'ou do not know what they cost there? A.—No, not 50 there. Q.—Do vou know what they that coast? A.—Yes. Q.—What would they cost? are different kinds of canoes. Q.— I know, but just give your own statement of the kinds of canoes and the price. A.—Sealing canoes I have known to be bought at from $6 to $30 and $40. Q.—What were the dimensions of the highest price canoes? A.—They would all be about the same size, it would all de- 60 pend on the stability, quality and form of build. Q.—The $6 canoe might be the same size as the $40 ones? A.—Yes. Q.—What was the best material of which caneies were built and which brought the highest price of $40? A.—It is not the material, it is the work, modelling and the stability. 0-—What makes the elifference between the low price and the high price canoe, tell ns in your own opinion, and in your would cost any where along A.—Well, of course, there 20 30 40 5o 244 own way? A.—Well, according to the number of pieces the canoe was built from. A canoe that was specially built would be a canoe that was built of three pieces. Q.—The best canoe is built of three pieces? A.—Yes. Q.—Is it coppered or braced at the knees? A.—Yes. Q.—I think in the best canoes the ribs are steamed, are they not? A.—Y'es, sometimes. Q.—Were there any hunters on board of the "Carolena" when you were on board of her up at the trading post? A.— Not to my knowledge. Q.—Did you see any? A.—There may have been but I did not observe. Q.—Did you see any ashore from the "Carolena?" A.— They are all hunters, you might say. They are all Indians up there. Q.—Did you see any hunters ashore that came from the "Carolena?" A.—No, I do not remember. Q.—How large a place is this trading post? How many white people are there there? A.—There are no white people there except the white people that trade. Q.—Not one except the people in the trading post, and all the rest are Indians? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you see any white people there except the ship's crew of the Carolena, and the people trading at the post and occupied there ? A.—Do you ask me if I saw any other white people there? Q.—Y'es? A.—Not outside of those that were travelling with me. Q.—You were at the trading post for how long?A.—Three days. Q.—You did not see any white people there except those engaged at the trading post? A.—No. Q.—Nor you didn't see any one on the "Carolena" except Ihe ship's crew, is that right? A.—That is right. Re-direct examination by Mr. Beique: Q.—Mr. Spring, you have stated that you were interested in five different claims before this Commission, but you are not interested in the present claim of the "Carolena," are you? A.—No. Q.—Did you buy any canoes in 1886 yourself? A.—I must have bought some. Q.—"Where did you buy them? A.—I think they were bought at different places on the coast. Q.—You bought several? A.—Several. 0.—Is $40 the highest price that you paid for canoes? A. —Yes. Q.—You do not know of any that were sold for $50? A.— No, not to my personal knowledge. Q.—How long was the "Carolena" at that trading post while you were there? A.—I do not know. Q.—Do you remember if she was there for a whole day or for- only a part of a daj7? A.—1 know she was there for the whole time I was there. I was there about three days and about the same time I left she left. Examination of the witness closed. 60 Mr. Peters:—We now propose if your Honours please to go into another branch of the case, and to produce evidence of the catch made in the v'ears 1886 and 1887. Before we give evidence on that point we propose to put in evidence certain admissions made by the United States in their case before the Paris Tribunal. I now refer not to any secondary evidence or affidavits or anything of that kinel, but to formal statements made in their case. I shall quote always from the case of the United States, Vol. 2, of the American Re-print, At page 188 the following extract is found: 20 3o 245 "In 1883 the schooner San Diego entered Behring Sea and returned to Victoria with upwards of 2,000 skins. This gave an impetus to the trade, and new vessels embarked in the enterprise." At page 125 also of the case of the United States the following statement is found: "The herd spreads along the coast in a long irregular bod3r, generall3' advancing northward until they begin to enter io Behring Sea in May or June, through the eastern passage of the Aleutian Islands, seldom going west of the Four Mountain Pass. But the last of the herd do not leave the Pacific ocean until July. The cows, however, are practically out of the Pacifie ocean by the middle of June. A chart showing this migration has been prepared from the data contained in the depositions herewith submitted." I wish to put before the Commission that chart which I will put in evidence as "Exhibit 17 G.B., Claim No. 1. It is marked with a tag on it, called "migration Chart 3." Received in evidence and numbered Exhibit 17 (G. B.) Claim No. 1. These charts that I am referring to now, I may state generally, are all charts issued by the United States Government and used before the Paris Tribunal. Mr. Lansing:—I think I heard Sir Charles Tupper say that this was used in Paris, ft was not used at Paris, but there was one drawn specially and used for that purpose there.. Sir Charles H. Tupper:—It was part of the United States case served on the British agent. It came from your government. Mr. Lansing:—In the counter case of the U. S. p. 105, the following statement appears: "From the further data mentioned above a new migration chart has been drawn correcting and modifying the one of the United States." Mr. Peters:—If the amended chart is not in the papers connected with the case I shall have it put in. On page 368, Vol. 2. of the United States case American re-print, the following statement appears: "It must therefore be evident that if these animals were followed into the Behring sea and hunted down in a calm sea in the quietest month of the year, a practically unlimited quantity of females might be taken, and as you say it would 50 only be a few years until the Alaska seal was a thing of the past." I draw your Honours' attention to the words: "Practically an unlimited quantity of females might be taken." I will refer now to the case of the United States, Vol. 3, of the American re-print, and I find therein an affidavit put forward by the United States of one William Brennan, who is Go described at page 357 as follows: "William Brennan being Qrst duly sworn deposes and says"— Mr. Dickinson:—We object to the testimony from this source, may it please your Honours. If we enter upon that we can dismiss the case of the United States by quoting the British case. My learned friend uses the United States case to show that the seals can be found in certain places h> Behring Sea in unlimited quantities, and that they are all females, but we can show 3'ou beyond a shadow of a doubt 40 from the British case that they are mostly males and pups. We can demonstrate that they could not be taken as asserted >y the United States, and inasmuch as the United States were beaten before the Paris Tribunal I think the British case, if we put it in, would likely upset the American case on that point. It does seem to me that the argument of the United States or the argument of Great Britain, or the authorities cited by either one, or the evidence presented by either side on this question of the habits of the fur seals cannot io be competent to this hearing. If that is allowed your honours will have to decide, because the United States and Great Britain were in conflict on these very points as to which my learned friend cites the United States case. . If this kind of evidence has any bearing at till, your Honours will have to take that issue that was before the Paris Tribunal and decide which nation was right. We are certainly not bound by this evidence here in another case between different parties, and after the deea'sion of the Paris Tribunal. I submit that this evidence can hardly be included in the class that is called suitable and authentic testimony. Unless your honours have all the facts whielt were present at the Paris Tribunal, upon which this argument was based then we should not have any of it. 20 1 30 Mr. Peters: davits. -Are vou referring to the case, or to the affi- 40 50 60 Mr. Die unson: 0 both. Mr. Peters:—My learneel friend seems to overlook the object, with whieh this evidence is put in, I may state frankly that it bears on the allegation that in 1886 and 1887 we were prevented from catching seals as we had a perfect right to do. We allege that in 1886 and 1887, if we had been allowed to go on with the catching of seals there were plenty of seals to be caught, and our opportunity for catching them was first- class. Now how are we attempting to prove this in the first place. We say that the United States from the beginning have put forward that very case themselves. We say that at Paris it was frankly admitted by both parties, that especially in 1886 when the first seizure took place the time and circumstance were favorable to catching a large quantity of seals. My learned friend lj|l. Dickinson says that in the evidence on behalf of the United States you will find that nothing but cows were lulled, while in the British case you will find affidavits to prove that nothing but males were killed. While they differ, perhaps, as to the gender of the seals, both sides admitted, and that is. what I want to show, that there were lots of seals to ba caught in Behring Sea, and that we were stopped from caidling them when we had a good opportunity of catching plenty of them. The fact of the matter is that the United States put a certain line of case before the Paris Tribunal. Their case was that pelagic sealing was doing a good deal of harm, and in order to prove that they give evidence to make out that the pelagic sealers did kill and could kill a large number of seals. They were not then thinking of the question of compensation. They were not then thinking that the very evidence they were giving might have two edges to it, and that by and by when we came to the question of compensation, this very evidence .might be useful for us in proving our case. The United States availed of that evidene-e' to prove their case b"fcie the Paris Tribunal, and they having got the benefit of (hat evidence in their own case, surely they shoulel not deny us the benefit of it now. They cannot blow hot and cold. The3' said the evidence was true when they were before the Paris Tribunal, and if il is true why should the37 object 247 to our using it. We have their own statement that seals were abundant in these years, and we claim that if they had allowed us to go on catching them we would have caught a large number. I do not put this forward as secondary evidence at all. I put it forward as evidence showing the opinion of the United States on this matter, and when your Honours come to read this evidence, and study the case as it was before the Paris Tribunal—as I know your Honours will do, even though it is not laid before you—it will appear to you IO clearly and plainly that before that Tribunal, the greater part of the United States case went upon the question, which they then alleged to be a fact that seals, in the month of August and July, especially in the 3'ears 1886 and 1887, were very plentiful and that the opportunity of killing them was very good. That is the object with which we put this evidence in and I submit to your Honours that it is admissible. Mr. Dickinson:—I am not raising a question of sentiment, but I am raising a question of the relevancy of certain evidence. The fact that the United States showed the Paris 20 Tribunal that there were a great many seals in Behring sea and that interference with them by hunters in such a manner as was practiced would ultimately destroy the herd, has nothing whatever to do with this case. Y'et, on this, my learned friends seek to show in their theory of prospective catch that they could have killed with their sealing schooners and their crews of hunters a large number of seals. Your Honours will see at once that the fact that there was a large number of seals in Behring sea within a certain area is not competent evidence tending to show that the ship "Car- 3° olena" could have killed all the seals in sight. Sir Charle; dence. H. -Tipper: It is one of the steps in the evi- SO Mr. Dickinson:—It is not one of the steps of competent proof. Counsel on the other side have to show the capacity of the hunters; they have to show that white hunters kill more than Indian hunters, that white hunters in boats kill more than hunters in canoes, and there are many other ele- ments that enter into it. The fact that seals are there is 4 admitted on all sides. There is no question of the fact that seals were there in 1886 and 1887, and I presume they are there to-day, but it does not follow that the "Carolena" could have killed an unlimited number of seals because they were there. It transpires, and that is why I point to the incompetency of the testimony, that other elements which go into the case, must be before your Honours to enable you to form a judgment as to what the ship could kill. It appears b3T the evidence in this very ease, that more seals are lost than are taken on the ship, because when a seal is wounded it sinks, and over and over again it is shown in that case that where a seal is wounded at any distance from the boat it is almost certain to be lost. The Indians creep upon them and unless (hey do come quietty upon them and kill them asleep they lose the seals if they are wounded. They must catch the seal immediately after it is wounded. Your Honours will see that, as it is not at all suitable and authentic proof of what the "Carolena" could have caught, to show that the seals were there. There are a great many elements which enter into CiQ this question. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The extracts from the American case were read without any suggestion of an objection to it. that I heard. What is the particular matter objected to now? Mr. Peters:—The particular matter objected to is, I believe, the extract from the affidavit contained in the United States case. That affidavit is part and parcel of their case, produced ^S^r^ff^r^' 111 IO 248 by the United States government, and in fact is the basis of their original case. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How many of these extracts do you propose to read? Mr. Peters:—Not a great many of them at all. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understood that Mr. Dickinson admitted that the seals were there. Mr. Peters:—Mr. Dickinson has pointed out several things I hat will have to be proved before the particular portions of the United States case I have read will be of any use to us. I agree with him there. We must take the evidence step by step and we cannot prove it all at once. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Dickinson, does your objection apply to the extract which Mr. Peters read from the United States case, or does it apply 20 merely to the affidavit which he was about to read? Mr. Dickinson:—It applies both to the affidavit arid to the extract. This testimony was not shown to us previously— and I do not at all take any exception to that—but of course, I cannot tell what it is until Mr. Peters reads it. I cannot tell whether I would have any objection to it at all until I hear what it is. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Of course not, but I was endeavoring to ascertain whether your 3° objection applies to the extract or to the affidavit. Mr. Dickinson:—I object to both, your Honours. I object to a statement of conclusion on a case on a contention in which the United States and Great Britain were parties. I object to an3' such conclusion as competent evidence to show that the "Carolena" could catch more seals than she did catch. It is a conclusion upon the testimony. How could your Honours call it competent testimony? If it is an admission, then by all the rules of evidence the admission must be read into 4° the case in connection with every circumstance under which it is made. The admission must be read into the case with its whole environments, and if he reads a part of the case of the United States it would be necessary to put it all in in order to give 3rour Honours any idea of the limtations of the admission. Under the most primary rule.of documentary proof you cannot take one page from a document if there are two pages on it, and put that one page in as evidence. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—If there is 50 anything that substantially qualifies it of course that would go in. Mr. Dickinson:—May it please your Lordship, the whole text re going to draw the line on this qualifies it. Where are matter. Shall we put all the the circumstances under which it is m 60 United States case in, showing iade with all the quali- To take up a part of that testimony and fying statements. 10 laiee up a p<u.i. w ma^ icoumv/uj emu. put it in is not only not competent, but it is very far removed from il. In a court of law your Honours would not permit it for a moment. It is not suitable testimony, to take part of m from conclusions of facts presented, and an argument drawn from charge that a on which it is based. drawn trom conclusions of facts presented, and s an admission, without reading the objections s based. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you object to proof of any kind showing the frequenting of Behring Sea by seals at this particular date spoken of by Mr. Peters. 10 20 249 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Could you very well do so, Mr. Dickinson. It appears to me that no person could prove the whole of these facts at one time, and the question is: Is this a material part and relevant to the inquiry? The question then for you, as asked by my learned colleague is: Do you or do you not say that it is competent to the other side, to make proof that seals frequented the Behring Sea in large numbers in 1886. Mr. Dickinson:—I have not the slightest doubt of the com- petenc3' of that proof. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—If the question is as to the mode of proof, then we have to discover whether the statements made by the United States Government in the proceedings before the Paris Tribunal were of the nature of admissions that will bind them in the present inquiry, or whether, otherwise, it is proper evidence for us to regard. That, I suppose, is the particular question upon which you, Mr. Dickinson, take the negative side. Mr. Dickinson:—That is the point exactly, your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—And you say that not only is it incompetent for the other side to bring forward affidavits that were made use of by the United States, but that it is also equally incompetent to bring forward statements in the United States case as part of the subsequent case of Great Britain. That I understand is your contention. 30 Mr. Dickinson:—That is the contention. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Your objection, therefore, applies both to the statement of the case that has been read, and also to the affidavit? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, it does, your Honour. I beg to point out that we are now in the sealing country, the source from which both sides of the case, as presentee! to the Paris Tribunal, was drawn. Here in Victoria are the witnesses. Here is the source of information on this very point, and here this Tribunal has been asked to sit. This case is sent to this Tribunal, sitting at the source of this information, in order that we may listen to the oral testimony of the men who are perfectly familiar with the sealing industry and with the Behring Sea. Should we not get our information directly here, and should not the evidence be taken here? 40 So 60 Mr. Peters:—My friend is a little in error as to where these statements were made. The witness whose affidavit I whs about to read from, is not at Paris, nor in Victoria, but he resides at Seattle, as 1 understand. He was sworn at Seattle before Notary D. A. McKenzie, which does not sound like a very Parisian name. My learned friend now tells us that all the evidence is to be got from Victoria, but the other day he told us that all the evidence was to be got at San Francisco, and he asked us to go there to hear practically the whole of his case. The United States used this affidavit for one purpose, and we have a perfect right to use it for another. If there was anything wrong in that affidavit, or if it was put in in error, my friend has only to point that out and there will be every opportunity to amend it. My learned friend says that they will not be bound by these affidavits. I do not for a moment contend that the United States Government is absolutely bound by every one of these affidavits. They can point out that it was made under a misapprehension of facts, and the mistake can be remedied. I do not object to their saying that that affidavit is not correct, although they put it in their case. I do not think they will say so, but, if such a thing should happen, there is ample opportunity to offer an explanation of it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Peters, you have some other evidence besides these affidavits, have you not? Mr. Peters:—Certainly, your Honour. This evidence touches not only the catching of seal by English vessels, but also by American vessels. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Have you any other, evidence that you could take up in the morning, leaving this question in abeyance? Mr. Peters:—Yes, raW Honour, but it would be very inconvenient for me until I read those extracts, which are very short. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—As to the answer by the American to the British Government, there has 20 been no serious objection taken to it, and we think it admissible. As to the affidavit it is not so clear, and if it could stand for a while, until we can look a little more into it, it would perhaps be better. That is the reason why my learned colleague asked if we could go on with something else in the morning. Mr. Peters:—If the matter is under the consideration of your Honours, I would like it to be fully understood that the very question, as to how far this is admissible, may be pos- ->q sibly a question that would stand over for argument at the end, the same as with regard to other questions. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—That would be very well, if one could know the scope of the evidence in question. 11 is likely that there will be a great mass of such testimony. Mr. Peters:—I can assure you that this is the last piece of such evidence we propose to give in this case. It is confined to a few short extracts, and especially with regard to the 4° evidence of a Captain Sheppard, a witness whom we cannot get. If 3'our Honours read it, I am satisfied you will see that it affords an excellent introduction to the oral evidence which will be hereafter given on the same point. It makes it more complete, and will show more clearly the way in which it was used by the American Government. I am quite sure my learned friend, Mr. Dickinson, will not refer to the case of Great Britain to show that there are not seals in the Behring.Sea, because both sides have agreed upon that. Mr. Dickinson:—I have already indicated to your distinguished colleague that I might put in the supplementary argument of the British case in whole to answer one deposition you read from. I do not know why this matter should be referred to at all. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—So far as the extracts from the United States are concerned, and which Mr. Peters read, we agree that counsel for the British Government has a right to put them (5o in. Of course counsel for the United States has a right to read other parts of the answer which may qualify theun. That is a legal right which we cannot deprive them of. But with regard to the affidavits, that is another question, and we would be glad to have you go on with some other evidence in the morning. . Mr. Peters:—I might give 3'ou an idea of what we would quote. CSSSE i • •• 10 20 30 40 50 251 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—If 3'ou could give us an idea of what the United States would put in in reply, it would be more satisfactory. Mr. Peters:—I am quite satisfied my learned friend will not attempt to answer the point I am about to make because it is admitted on both sides. It has been put in proof by affidavits presented by themselves. The case of the United States was founded on these affidavits and the conclusions at which they arrived were practically based on them. These affidavits are the proof that were put in in support of their case. I do not see that there is any difference or that there should be any objection to putting in affidavits upon which the case of the United States was founded, when we are allowed to put in extracts from the case itself. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Suppose I apply for an injunction and file a lot of affidavits on which to base my injunction, could these affidavits be used in a subsequent suit. Mr. Peters:—Yes, if the subsequent suit arose in the same matter. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The witnesses being still alive and within reach? Mr. Peters:—Yes, I think so. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not put this in any technical way, but merely as an illustration? Of course we are proceeding on somewhat broader grounds here than in ordinary suits of common law. Mr. Peters:—Yes, even in common law, if there was a contention in the same matter. An injunction case is a good illustration. It comes before- court for interlocutory injunction, and certain affidavits are used, and afterwards that case goes on further and it is tried, and the question comes up on trial. Surely the evidence that one party used a*td adopted on the first application may be used against him subsequently. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is rather a novel proposition t<j me, I must say. Mr. Peters:—It is not often a question of the kind arises and I would point out to your Honours that it is not often that 3'ou have a legal matter left to such a late day as has been in the case of these claims. These things occurred ten years ago. The witnesse are out of reach. I cannot get this man whose affidavit I propose to read. He does not appear to be a citizen of this countiw at all, but of the- United States. I could not get him if I wanted to. and in saying this I do not wish your Honour to infer that I have tried to get him. He is practically out of our reach, and he is out of the reach of this Commission unless you go to San Francisco. , The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I come back again to the simple question, Mr. Peters, as to whether 3'ou -will be able to offer any other evidence in the 60 morning. Mr. Peters:—Yes, we will. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We may not be prepared to rule upon this question in the morn- ins:. The Commission then rose. Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and. the United States of America- Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 8,1896. At 10:30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Peters, have you yet heard about Claim 5, where there was IO a motion to dismiss, and the matter was laid over? Mr. Peters:—Yes, I communicated by telegraph directly with Sir Julian Pauncefote, and I have received an answer to that which I have also communicated to my learned friend, who I think will agree with me in not pushing that matter just at present. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is that the "Sayward" ? 20 Mr. Peters:—I was referring to the "Ada" and "Black Diamond." The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The Commissioners will give it no attention until (hey hear from counsel. Do I understand it correctly? Mr. Peters:—I telegraphed to Sir Julian Pauncefote and received back an answer, which answer I communicated to Mr. Dickinson, and Mr. Dickinson, as I understand, is awaiting also to hear from his Government, and I think it would be 3° highly advisable that the matter should stand until we see whether there is really any difference of opinion between the two governments. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Then we need give no further attention to it until we hear from it from one side or the other. Is that correct? Mr. Peters:—That is correct, your Honour. 4° William Thomas Brass was called on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn: Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell. Q.—Your name is William T. Bragg? A.—Yes. Q.—You live in Victoria? A.— I elo. Q.—And your occupation now is a master mariner, is it, Mr. Bragg? A.—It is. Q.—Were you in this country in 1886? A.—I was. Q.—What occupation did you follow.in the year 1886? 50 A.—I was mate on the sealing schooner "Mary Ellen." Q.—Did she go out on a sealing voyage that year? A.— She did. Q.—Did she go into Behring Sea? A.—She did. Q.—On what kind of a voyage did she go to Behring Sea? A.—A sealing voyage. Q.—With how many hunters and how many boats? A.— There were five hunters, regular hunters, anel I ran the stern boat myself, and the deck hand. Q.—Five hunting boats and the stern boat? A.—And the 60 stern boat. Q.—What was the custom with reference to hunting by the stern boat? A.—Well, I had the vessel to wash down in the morning, skins to salt, and after I got through with my work I could go out if I felt like it; it was not compulsoiw for me to go. Q.—And I suppose it would depend a good deal on fh" weather and other different circumstances whether you did go out? A.—II elid. Q.—Was that course pursued during the whole of the voyage? A.—It was not. The whole of the Behring Sea voyage it was. Not the whole of the voyage. Q.—I am only speaking of the Behring Sea voyage; we are not interested in any other part. Do j'ou recognize that book, Mr. Bragg? A.—(Examining) I do. Q.—What is it? A.—It is an account book I have with the catches from day to day. Q.—How were the hunters paid? A.—81.5(1 per skin. 10 Q.—Who kept the accounts of the skins? A.—The captain and myself. Q.—How did you keep that account, speaking of your own part of it? A.—I kept it in a private book. Q.—In that book (indicating)? A.—Yes, in that book. Q.—When were the entries made? A.—Well, as a rule, every night; some times I let it go until the next morning if I was too busy that night. Q.—Where did you get the information from which you made the entries in this book? A.—As a rule I counted the 20 seals as they came over the rail, and made the captain acquainted with the number of them; and if I was not there he counted them. Q.—And you got the entry from him? A.—I got the entry from him. Q.—Are the entries here in your own writing? A.—They are. Mr. Dickinson:—I suppose this testimony bears on the probable catch? 3° Mr. Peters:—Yes. Mr. Dickinson:—Of course that comes in under your Honours' intimation reserving that question for further argument, as I understand it. Mr. Dickinson (To Mr. Bodwell)—Do you want to put that book in just as it is? Mr. Bodwell:—I would like to put the book in, but for the convenience of the Commissioners I propose to make an ab- 4° stract of the parts material to the case. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Why do you not let the witness take it, and refresh his memory from it? Mr. Bodwell:—For this reason, you Honour; for the convenience of argument, anel 1 Ihink for the convenience of the Commissioners, I want to make a short abstract of the parts which are material. 50 The Commissioner pn the part of the United States:—Then why do you not put in the abstract, and submit it to counsel on the other side? Mr. Bodwell:—If your Honours think it would be a better course, I can do that. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It seems to me very desirable that both Commissioners and counsel should take all possible means to prevent the Commission from being lejaded with documents and papers be- 60 cause these documents and papers have got to be transported wherever the Commission goes, and both counsel cannot have them. For example, suppose both counsel are preparing arguments simultaneously; wfey cannot have these documents and papers unless we* all remain hsgst-.;, Mr. Bodwell:—My object was not to encumber the notes with all the details. That I would like to have in evidence for the purpose of use afterwards. I thought I would prove r^*?V»5»5^fr"; 11 ii fl 111 254 the book, put it in evidence, and then make an abstract of the parts we desire to use. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Would it not be the most convenient way to make an abstract, submit it to the counsel for the United States, and then let the abstract go in evidence instead of the book? I only make the suggestion; of course counsel know better than the Commissioners what they require. io The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The regular course would be to use such a book as that for the purpose of examining the witness orally, ancr-regularly it would not be the subject of evidence itself. Mr. Bodwell:—I propose now to show the witness the book to aid his recollection. My friend the other day, with reference to another book of this kind, which I tendered, thought the book ought to go in. It was a case where we were examining Mr. Laing. 20 Q.—Will you look at the book, Mr. Bragg, and say what day 3'our ship entered Behring Sea, or rather, what, was the first day on which you took any seals in Behring Sea? A.— (Examining) We entered Behring Sea the 25th of June, 1886. The first day we hunted was the 28th of June, 1886. Mr. Dickinson:—In Behring Sea, I suppose? A.—In Behring Sea, yes, sir. Q.—What was the name of the first hunter whose account you kept? A.—John Jacobson was supposed to be the head hunter. 3o Q.—Did he hunt any in the month of June in Behring Sea? A.—He did. Q.—How many days in June did he hunt in Behring Sea? A.—Two days. Q.—How many seals? A.—12. Q.—Did that same hunter take any seals in the month of July? A.—He did. Q.—Were there any days in the month of July in which he did not hunt at all? A.—There was. Q.—How many? Perhaps you will give us the days on 4° which he did not hunt? A.—The first of July he got three. The second, three. Q.—What I wanted you to do first was to look through that list and see the days on which he did not hunt at all; I think that will be the shortest way to put it in. A.—The 4th of July, not hunting; the 5th of July, not hunting; the 7th of July, ditto; the 9th, ditto; the 10th, ditto; 19th, ditto; 23rd, ditto; 26h, ditto; 27th ditto. Q.—Were there any days on which he hunted part of the day and not the whole day? A.—There was. 5° Q.—What were they give the dates. * A.—3rd of July, hunted two hours; the 11th, half a day; on the 20th he shot one from the schooner; on the 24th, half a day; 26th, two hours. That is all Jacobson hunted. Q.—On the other days of the month did he hunt all day? A.—He did. Q.—What was his total catch for the month of July? A.— 286. Q.—Did the same hunter hunt in the month of August? A.—He did. 60 Q.—Will you look at your books and say what days in the month of August he did not hunt? A.—5th of August, he was not hunting, but he shot one from the schooner; the 6th, not hunting; 12th, not hunting; 13th, ditto; 14th, ditto; 16th, ditto 17th, ditto; 18th. ditto; 22nd, ditto; 26th, ditto; 28th ditto; went after a sleeper on the 29th from his vessel. Q.—Are there aii3r days on which he hunted a part of the day and not the whole day in that month? Will you just I IO 40 60 give us the days on whieih he hunted a part of the day? A.— 11th of August, hunted half a day: 15th of August, half a day; well there might have been six hours and there might have been eight hours. Q.—But you called it a half a day in your book? A.— Y'es, got aboard before 12 o'clock. 21st hunted half a day; 24th, half a day; one from the schooner on the 27th. Q.—What was his total catch for the month of August? A.—220. Q.—Take the next hunter, Mr. Bragg. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest3-:—Perhaps you might ask what it would be that would lead to his hunting and not hunting? The witness:—The weather. Q.—What was the name of 3'our second hunter? A—P. A. DeFries. Q.—Did he hunt in the month of June? A.—He did. Q.—In Behring Sea? A.—He did. Q.—How many days? A.—He hunted the 28th and the 30th. Q.—How many seals did he catch in the month of June? A.—Eight seals.' Q.—Did he hunt in the month of Juh? A.—He did. Q.—Now tell us just the number of days on which he did not hunt and the number of days on which he did hunt a part of a day, and the total catch in that month? A.—4th of July, not hunting; 5th, diilo; 7th, ditto; 9th, ditto; 10th, ditto; 19th. ditto; 20th, ditto. Q.—Do you find a leaf torn from the book there? A.—I do. Q.—You have not the record from the 9th. It is torn out of the book from the 9th to the 28th, isn't it? A.—From the 21st to the 28th. Q.—So you cannot state those intervening dates? A.—I cannot. Q.—Are there any dates after the 28th in which you did not hunt? A.—There are. Q.—State them? A.—The 31st. Q.—After looking at that page, can you tell me what his total catch for July was? A.—I can. 0.— What was it? A.—246. Q.—Did the same hunter hunt in the month of August? A.—He did. Q.—Were there any days on which he did not hunt in the month of August? A.—There were. Q.—State them? A^r-5th of August, not hunting; 6th, ditto; 12th, .ditto; 13th, ditto; 14th, ditto; 16th, ditto; 17th, ditto; 18th, ditto; 2j2nd, ditto; 25th, ditto; 26th, ditto; 27tb, ditto; 28th, ditto; 29th, ditto. Q.—Any days on which he hunted parts of days in that month? A.—There were. Q.—What were they? A.—11th of August, hunted half a day; 15th, half a day; 24th, half a day. Q.—What was his total catch for the month of August? A.—175. Q.—Can you give any explanation of his not hunting after the 25th. I see you give four days there on which he did not hunt ? A.—I think the last day we hunted in the sea was the 24jp|& Q.—That is your recollection? A.—To the best of my re?- collection I think the 24th was the last da\- we hunted, but we remained there for a few days afterwards. Q.—Can you give us an3' reason for that? A.—Well, the wind wasn't favorable and ihe captain wanted to remain as long as possible. mm >.S6 Q.—Take the next hunter, what was his name? A.—Julian. ii.—He was a Spaniard? A.—A Mexican. Q.—Did he hunt in the month of June? A.—He did. - Q.-—How many da3rs? A.—Two. Q.—How many seals? A.—Seven seals in the two days. Q.—Did he hunt in the month of July? A.—He did. Q.—What davs in the month of June did he hunt? A.— 28th and 30th. * io Q-—State the days in July on which he did not hunt? Do you find a leaf torn out of 3'our book there? A.—I do. Q.—Is that a part of the record of Julian's hunting that is torn' A.—It is. Q.—How many days? A.—The 7th is here. Q.—Tell us then after the 7th? A.—The 7th, not hunting; 9th, ditto; 10th, ditto; 19th, ditto; 20th, ditto; 23rd, ditto; nth, ditto. Q.—Any da3rs on which he hunted a part of the day so far as that record goes? A.—There were. 20 Q.—State them? A.—11th, hunted half a day; 24th, half a day. Q.—On the remaining days he hunted, I understand? With reference to all these hunters the days whioh you do not spedfy as not hunting, or as hunting a part of the day, they were out all day, they hunted all day? A.—Well, they might have been out all da3', some of them, and they might not, I did not keep the hours they were out. Q— Y'ou called it a day? A.—I called it a day. Q.—That applies generally to all the hunters you are 30 speaking of in your evidence. What was his catch for the month of July? A.—306. (J.—Take the month of August, Mr. Bragg? A.—Julian, the month of August, not hunting the 6th; 12th, ditto; 13th, ditto: 14th. ditto; 16th, ditto; 17th. ditto; 18th, ditto; 25th, ditto; 201 h. ditto; 27th, ditto; 28th. ditto; 29th, ditto. Q.—Any half days in that? A.—There are. On the 5th he got two from the schooner; 15th, half a day; 21st, a half a day; 24th, a half a dav. Q.—Total for the month of August? A.—231. 40 Q.—Take your next hunter, what is his name? A.—Lor- ;nzo. Q.—Take the month of June first? A.—28th is the first day Lorenzo hunted, an'd the 30th. Q.—How many seals did he get? A.—1. Mr. Peters:—If the Commissioners please, I have a witness here who will be very short—Mr Thomas. He has just come from the hospital, and, if it would not inconvenience the Court, I would like to examine him and let him go, interrupt- 50 lug this witness. The Commissioner on the part of/ Her Majesty:—Perhaps you had better finish this statement with regard to this man. Q.—The month of July, state the days on which he did not hunt. Did he hunt in the month of July? A.—He did. Q.—State the days on which he was not out? A.—4th not hunting, 5th ditto, 7th ditto, 9th ditto, 10th ditto, 19th ditto, 20th ditto, 23rd ditto, 27th ditto. 6 Q.—Did he hunt on the 26th? A.—26th he hunted. Q.—Any half days? A.—He did. The 3rd of July two hours. 1 • •*" Q.—Look at the 11th? A.—The 11th hunted half a day, 24th half a day. Q.—Is anything on the 26th? A.—26th half a day. Q.—What was his total catch for the month of July? A.— 220. 257 Q.—Take the month of August? A.—5th not hunting 6th ditto, 12th ditto, 13th ditto, 14th ditto, 16th ditto, 17th ditto, got one from the schooner on the 18th, 22nd not hunting, 25th ditto, 26th ditto, 27th ditto, 28th ditto. Q.—Any half days? A.—There are. q—State them please? A.—The nth half &. day, 15th half a day, 21st half a day, 24th ditto. Q.—How many seals did he get on that half day, the 21st? A.—11. io Q.—What was his total catch for that month? A.—179. Q.—What was his best day, can you tell there without much bother? A.—The 19th. Q.—How many did he get? A.—32. Examination of witness suspended. Owen Thomas called on the part of Great Britain, and 20 u sworn: Direct examination by Mr. Peters. Mr. Thomas, you live in Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And do you remember the schooner "Carolena"? A. I do, sir. Q.—In 1886 were you on the schooner "Carolena" ? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—As a pilot, or something of that sort? A.—Yes, sir. 30 Q.—Where did you go on her? A.—Went to New Chate- let (Esperanza Inlet) sometime about the middle of Februffeg^ Q.—What did you go there for? A.—For a crew of Indians for Behring set. Q.—Did you get the Indians? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you take some supplies down there? A.—Yes. Q.—What were you going to do with the supplies? A.— Going to feed the Indians. Q.—To keep the Indians? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was it your intention to land the supplies? A.—Yes. 4° Q.—After you found out that the Indians wouldn't come, what did you do with the supplies? A.—Took them aboard. Q.—Did you, or did vou not, leave any supplies there? A. —No. Q.—You got no Indians? A.—No Indians; they wouldn't go. Q.—How long were you at this place? A.-—Quite a long time there. Q.—What were you doing there all 1 he time? A.—The vessel laid there, and we tried to coax them to go. 50 Q.—And you failed? A.—Failed, yes. Q.—And then you went where? A.—Victoria. Q.—Direct? A.—Direct, sir. Q.—Stopped at no other place? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you leave the vessel at Victoria? A.—I did. Q.—Y'ou had nothing more to do with her? A.—Nothing more to do with her. 60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— When was it that he got back? Mr. Peters:—He stated that he went in the middle of February. Witness:—About that time. Q.—And came back to Victoria, where you left the ship? A.—Left tlfiship. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: 17. .■.-iiirffi'rmnrEHg 258 Q.—Was Captain Ogilvie aboard? A.—He was aboard before I went aboard of her. Q.—Was he aboard when you went up to Chatelet? A.— 0 yes. ' i Q.—He was then on the ship? A.—O yes. Q.—What were your duties on board? A.—Piloting in the first place. Q.—Had you been on the boat before up there? A.—O yes, 1 was in another boat there. io Q.—But on the "Carolena"? A.—No, sir. Q.—Never had been up there before? A.—Not on the "Carolena." Q.—Did Mr. Munsie have a trading post there? A.—O, he didn't have no trading post. Q.—At Chatelet? A.—No. Q.—Where did you land these things? A.—There was a little Sed there. Q.—How large a shed? A.—O, I can't remember. Q—What did you put into that shed? A.—This stuff, 20 that's all. Q.—Did you land it, or was it landed under Captain Ogilvie's direction? A.—Well, I have forgot now. Q.—You were only there as pilot? A.—Mostly. Q.—You only had to do with it as pilot? A.—I helped them to get the Indians to go if I could. Q.—Did you have anything to do with the landing of the goods, or did Captain Ogilvie superintend that? A.—I forget all these things, my head is bothered a little now. Q.—Did you have anything to do with putting them back 3° on the "Carolena," or did Captain Ogilvie attend to that? A. I helped, I suppose. Q.—-Who was in charge of this shed where you put them? A.—The oldjiiief. Q.-—Was there any white man there? A.—No. Q.—No one but a chief? A.—No. Q.—Any place to lock up the goods there in the shed? A. —Yes. Q.—It locked up did it! Were there any other goods in there? Did you go inside of the shed yourself? A.—Went 4° inside, I suppose Q.—Do you remember whether you did or not? A.—Well, yes, I went in with the stuff I suppose. Q.—Were there any other goods there before those were taken off the "Carolena"? A.—I couldn't tell you that now. Q.—Can you tell me as to the size of that shed? A.—No. Q.—Do you know who built the shed? A.—O, I have forgot all about that. Q.—Captain Ogilvie was master and attended to the man- (._ agement of the ship, didn't he, except in regard to the pilot- ing. A.—Yes. Q.—Where did you go after Indians? A.'—To New Chate- let. I } Q.—Did you go anvwhere else up the coast in the canoes? A.—No. Q.—And you were engaged in looking for Indians? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Did 3'ou get any canoes there and put on board the "Carolena?" A.—That is more than I can tell you. I have 60 forgot all about that. Q.—Y'ou came back to Victoria? A.—Yes. I think there was four canoes put on the schooner. Q.—And brought back to Victoria? A.—Yes, if I have not forgotten. Q.—Yrou would not be positive about that, would you? A. —No, I can't be, because I don't remember. Q.—Did you see I hem loaded on—three lartre canoes, the largest size? A.—I ain't sure of it, sir, but I think there was. Ill 111 259 Q.—-Are 3'Ou as sure of that as you are that the supplies were loaded back on the vessel? A.—We wasn't going to leave them there anyhow. Q.—You remember distinctly putting the supplies back? A.—I know they was all put on board. Q.—Did you have an^hing to do with taking them out of the ship yourself? A.—I suppose I helped. Q.—Did you? A.—I expect so. Q.—Did you have anything to do with putting them in io there? A.—Well, the old man did it mostly. Q.—You didn'fTTandle the goods, did you, yourself? A.— I worked some about it. Q.—Y'ou remember what was taken off the "Carolena" and put into the shed? A.—No, I don't remember that. Q.—Don't remember what was put off? A.—I know there was flour. Q.—Flour in barrels? A.—No, in sacks. Q.—Do you remember of the bacon and hams being put off? A.—I don't remember. 20 Q.—Any lumber? A.—There was a little lumber there. Q.—Was it taken off the "Carolena"—lumber and shingles? A.—I don't remember all those things. Q.—Do you remember how long it took to get them off the •'Carolena" into the shed, put in the boats and carried ashore? A.—I don't believe I do. Q.—And you don't remember how long it took to load them on again? A.—No. Q.—Did they take all the things out of the hold, all the supplies? A.—It is so long ago I have forgot. 30 Q.—Did they put all the supplies back in the hold? A.— I don't remember, they must be put in the hold. Q.—You don't remember it, do you? A.—No, I do not. Q.—Did you see Captain Munsie last night? A.—No, sir. Q.—Who spoke to you about this matter of being at Chatelet in 1886? A.—I seen Mr. Munsie this morning. Q.—Did he come to get you? A.—He sent a carriage up, yes. Q.—And talked with you about being up there in 1886? A. —I know I was there. 4° Q.—He talked to you this morning, did he? A.—No, he wanted me to tell what I know. Q.—Did he go up there where you were living? A.—I was in the hospital, sir. Q.—Did he go up there? A.—Y'es, sir. Direct examination of Mr. Bragg resumed by Mr. Bodwell. A.—C. F. Dil- 5o 60 Q.—Who was the hunter next to Lorenzo^ Ion. Q.—Did he hunt in the month of June? A.—He did. Q.—On what days? A.—Hunted the 28th of June and the 30th of June. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand this is in Behring sea? Mr. Bodwell:—Yes. (To witness): Q.—The evidence you have been giving relates to the catch in Behring sea entirety? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Did he hunt in the month of July? A.—He did. Q.—Tell us the days on which he did not go out in the month of July, as you have done heretofore? A.—July 2nd not hunting, 4th ditto, 5th ditto, 7th ditto, 9th ditto," 10th ditto, 19th ditto, 20th ditto, 23rd ditto, 27th ditto. Q.—Any half days? A.—Yes. Q.—State them please? A.—3rd of July two hours, 11th half a day, 24th half a day. Q.—Total number of skins for July? A.—209. 260 Q.—Did that hunter hunt in the month of August? A.— He did. Q.—State the days in August in which he was not out? A. —the 5th of August, two from the schooner, the 6th not hunting, 12th ditto, 13th ditto, 14th ditto, Kith elitto, 17th elitto, 18th ditto. 22nd ditto, 25th ditto, 26th elitto, 27th ditto, 28th ditto, 29th ditto. Q.—Any half days? A.—Yes. Q.—State them, please? A.—The 11th a half day, 15th half IO day, 21st half day, 24th half day. Q.—Total catch for August? A.—153. Q.—Was that all the hunters? A.—That was all the hunters. Q.—Have you any record of the stern boat for the month of August? A.—I have. Q.—That was 3'our own boat? A.—That was the boat I lunted in. Q.—Now state what days the stern boat hunted, and what your catch was in the month of August? A.—The 1st 14, 20 3rd 3, 4th 1, 6th 1, 8th 6, 10th 12, 15th 3, (half a day) 19th 5, 24th 1, 25th 1 from the schooner. Q.—Will you look at the 19th again? A.—Five from the schooner, I have it marked here. Q.—What was the total catch for the month of August? A.—47. Q.—Have you in your book any record of the stern boat for the month of July? A.—I have not. Q.—From your book can you state the total number of seals you caught outside of Behring sea that year? A.—1 0 can. Q.—How many did vou catch outside of the sea in that year? A.—1869. Q.—Have vou your total catch for the season in your book? A.—I have. I Q.—What was the total catch for the season? A.—4,264. Q.—And the catch outside of the sea was 1,869? A.— 1,869. There was two of them seal that Jacobsen got in the month of August, that I wouldn't swear whether he caught them in the sea, or in the Pacific on our way home. Q.—So you have taken those off have you? A.—I put 4° them onto the coast catch. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How much does that leave for the Sea? Mr. Bodwell:—2395. ley, Mr. Bragg? A.—I Q.—Those figures are right, are think so, sir. Q.—Where is the coast catch in that book? A.—There was one seal that was gaffed alongside the vessel in the 5° month of August. That we ain't to give as evidence here. Q.—What did 3rou get on the California coast? A.—California, Oregon and Vancouver coast, 704. Q.—You have that marked in your book? A.—I have that marked in the book. Q.—What did you get on the» Alaska coast, have you that marked? A.—I have it marked here, 1168. I added the 704; and the 116S, and them three that I was doubtful about 1 put on the coast catch. Mr. Bodwell:—I will not take the time of the Commissioners now in giving the figures, but I propose to put in the number of seals taken by each man on each day in tabulated form. I?he Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—What was the name of 3'our vessel? A.—"Mary Ellen," sir. Q.—You were not interfered with that vear? A.—Not at all. ■rr '' "'-"nr"' ""-"' 261 Q.—And hunted until you were readv to go home? A.— We did. Q.—Did 3'ou know a hunter named Joseph Dupont? A.— I do, or did. He is dead now. Q.—And a hunter named McCanitrv? A.—No, I did not. . Q.—Shields? A.—I did. Q.—John Cofsford? A.—I do. Q.—How did those men compare with your men as hunters—the men in the "Mary Ellen" I mean? A.—Well, some 10 of .them were equal. Q.—Compare your own men with those? A.—Some of them were not. Q.—Now you had better specify those. What men do you say were as good as yours? A.—Jacobsen and Julian were supposed to be the two best hunters we had. Q.—Do you mean to say that they were as good as these other men I have given. Was Jacobsen as. good a man as Dupont? A.—He was. Q.—Was he as good a man as McCanitry? A.—I don't 20 know McCanitry. Q.—Was he as good a man as Shields? A.—He was. Q.—As good a man as Cotsford? A.—Yes. Q.—Now then, De Fries, was he as good a man as Dupont? A.—I should say he was. Q.—As good as Shields? A.—I think so. Q.—And Cotsford? A.—I think so. Q.—Was Julian considered as good a man as Dupont? A. —I think so. Q.—And as the other two? A.—Yes. 30 Q.—And Lorenzo? A.—Well, I couldn't say that he was. Q.—Was not as good a man as the others? A.—Well, I don't know but that he was equal. Q.—He was not an3r better? A.—fro, I think not. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—In stating these hunters Mr. Bodwell, has the witness stated their nationality? Mr. Bodwell:—He only gave one of them, that is, Julian. 40 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Were they whites or Indians? The Witness:—White men. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How were the canoes manned? A.—Hunted in boats. 5° The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—How many men would there be in a boat?. A.—Three men, your Honour, two and the hunter. The Commissioner ou the part of Her Majesty:—These men would row the hoat? A.—One man would row the boat, and the other would steer, your Honour. Mr. Bodwell:—And only one man hunting in the boat? A. —One man hunting in the boat. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren. Q.—Was this the first year that you were in the Sea Mr. 60 Bragg? A.—It was my first year in the Sea. Q.—Had you ever hunted with these hunters before on the coast? A.—I never had. Q.—Had 3'ou ever hunted before anywhere? A.—I never had hunted seals, no. Q.—Do you know the experience that Dillon had had in hunting? A.—I think one year previous to that; I couldn't swear positively'. 262 Q.—And how about Julian in that regard? Was he an experienced hunter? A.—Julian was an experienced hunter. Q.—And Lorenzo? A.—Lorenzo was a new man, I think. Q.—De Fries? A,—He was an experienced hunter. Q.—Do you know Jacobsen? had he been out before? A.— Jacobsen had been out before, yes. Q.—The master of the "Mary Ellen" that year was Daniel McLean, was it not? A.—Captain Daniel McLean. Q.—One of the most experienced sealing captains in the 10 business. A.—He was. Q.—And the "Mary Ellen" was manned entirely by white men and used white hunters entirely? A.—Yes. Q.—Did they use guns in their boats? A.—They did. Q.—Did they use boats or canoes? A.—Boats. Q.—And had five boats? A.—Five boats and a stern boat. Q.—There were three men in a boat when they w»ent out from the vessel? A.—Three men in a be>at, with the exception of the stern boat. 2° • Q.—The stern boat would only go out occasionally when you had not anything else to do? A.—Only occasionally. Q.—The "Mary Ellen" entered the sea that year you say about the 20th of June, or the 26th of June? A.—The 25th of J tine. Q.—You hunted but two days in the sea that month? A. —Two days in June. Q.—The 26th and the 28th? A.—28th and 30th, if I remember right. Q.—Do your books show the location of your vessel at the 3 time you took these seals? A.—Latitude and longitude? Q.—Yes. A .—It doesn't. Q.—Do you know where, from your memory, you were iii the sea about the 2nd day of August? A.—2nd day of August we were in the sea. Q.—Whereabouts in the sea, I said? A.—I couldn't tell you. Q.—You have no memory? A.—To that effect. Q.—Do you know where the log for the "Mary Ellen" for ._ that year is? A.—I do not. Q.—It is not in your possession? A.—It is not in my possession. Q.—Did you speak the "Carolena" that year? A.—No, not that I know of. Q.—Did vou see the "Onward"? A.—Not that I am aware of. Q.—The "Favorite"? A.—No. Q.—The "Thornton"? A.—I think not. Q.—Then you were not hunting in their immediate vicinity SO on the 2nd day of August? A.—Well, they-might have been there, but we didn't know who they were. I don't remember whether there was any vessels in sight or not. Q.—Now, referring to the little book which you produced, Mr. Bragg, and taking the month of August, with reference to the hunter Jacobsen: I believe you stated that he did not hunt on the 5th, 6th, 12th 14th, 17th, 18th, 22nd, 26th and 28th of August, with the exception of half days on the 11th, 15th, 21st, 24th and 27th? Is that correct?' A.—Well. I didn't have the page turned up when 3'ou were reading, so I 60 couldn't say. (Question repeated.) A.—4th was the first—no, excuse me, the 5th. Q.—Take the next hunter, De Fries, vou stated that he did not hunt on the 5th, 6th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 22nd 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th, 29th, is that right? A.—That is correct. 263 Q.—With the exception of half days on the 11th 13th and 24th? A.—11th, 15th and 24th. Q.—And Julian did not hunt on the 6th of August, 12th, 13th, 14th. 16th. l Tt li. 18th, 25th, 26th, 27th, 28th nor 29th, wffn the exception of half days on the 5th, 6th, 12th, 14th, 15th, 21st and 24th? A.—The 22nd not hunting for Julian. Q.—He did not hunt? A.—Not hunting. Q.—Lorenzo, find his place in the book;, you stated he did not hunt on the 5th, 6th. 12th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 22nd, 25th, io 27th, 28th, with the exception of half days on the 15th, 21st, 24th? Is that correct? A.—The 11th is the first half day, 15th, and the 21st and the 24th. Q.—Adding the 11th as a half day to, what I read, it is correct, is it? A.—Quite correct Q.—And Dillon. 1 believe you stated that Dillon did not hunt on the 6th, 12th, 13th, 14th. 16th, 17th, 18th, 22nd, 25th, 26th, 27th, 29th, of August, and that he hunted no half days? A.—The 11th a half day. q.—What dav? A.—The 11th of August he hunted a half 20 day. Q.—With that exception it is correct, is it? A.—And on the 5th of August he got two seals from the schooner. Q.—With these exceptions it is correct, is it? A.—The 15th a half day for Dillon. The 11th. the 15th, 24th and the 21st a half day. Q.—Those are the only changes in August for Dillon? A. —Yes. Q.—You did not hunt much in August of that year? A.— Well, I think we hunted considerable. 3° Q.—Is that a fair average of days to be out during the month? A.—I think it is, yes, sir. Q.—Was that a stormy August, or just ordinary? A.— • lust an ordinary August. Q.—And you think you hunted the usual number of elays during that month, do you? A.—I do. CJ.—There was nothing unusual about your ship; the only reason you did" not hunt was on account of the weather, was FrT A.—Sometimes when seal are scarce they hunt them wp. Q.—You did not understand my question. I asked yon whether any accident occurred to your boat, or anything unusual which caused your sealers to remain in? A.—No accident whatever. - Q.—And you went out when it was good weather? A.— We went out when it was good weather. Q.—And stayed in when it was bad weather? A.—Stayed in when it was bad or foggy weather. Q.—And the matter of the weather entirely governed your movements as to whether you would hunt or not that month? 50 A.—Y'es, there was one day in the month, in July or August, that the captain turned one of the hunter's boats over. I couldn't say what day it was; he didn't hunt that morning. Q.—I believe yon have stated that yon took 2395 seals in the Sea that year? A.—That is what the figures show ii the book. Q.—Have you the figures at hand,, so that you can tell ns what part of that catch you took in August? A.—No, I haven't the totals added up. 60 Mr. Dickinson:—You can give the totals for August I suj pose. Mr. Peters :-^Just a matter of adding up. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Let him make it accurate, and include the first day of August. Mr. Bodwell |—I was going to put in an abstract, I will give yon a table for each month. 40 IO 20 30 40 50 60 264 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I would like to have them added up to and including the first day of August, so as to make an exact comparison with the "Carolena." Mr. Peters:—That is the way our table is made up. It gives August separately. . The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—To and including the first day of August, your tables are not made up at all, are they, for the various months. Mr. Bodwell:—I have a typewritten copy, not quite in shape —that I can hand to you (passes up type-written table). The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—For my own purpose I desire to have a statement made up to and including the first day of August corresponding exactly with the "Carolena." Mr. Peters:—1 will call attention to the fact that she was seized at six o'clock in the morning. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The "Carolena?" I thought it was half past seven at night, but perhaps I am mistaken about it. Mr. Warren:—If your Honour please, they did not hunt the first four da3'S in August, so it will commence August 5th. Q.—Do you know whether or not your catch was larger or smaller in August than in other months of that year that 3'ou were in the Sea—in July? A.—I couldn't say accurate- l3r, I never added the columns up. The "Mary Ellen" that year took 1,869 skins. Q.—In what you call her coast catch? A.—Y'es. Q.—That made a total of 2,264. Now Mr. Bragg, is not that the greatest catch ever made? A.—No. Q.—What vessel ever took a greater number of skins? A. —The schooner "Triumph." Q.—In what year? A.—1894, I think was the year. Q.—In the early days, and up to 1894, this is the greatest catch ever made, is it not? A.—It was. Q.—And is known as such among sealers? A.—Yes. Q.—And is to this day? A.—With the exception of the "Triumph." Q.—Who was the master of the "Triumph" when she made ;r catch in 1894? A.—Captatin Clarence Cox. Q.—For how many months was she out? A.—I couldn't tell you. Q.—Did that include a trip to Japan and back, as well as along the coast and in the Sea? A.—Not to Japan. Q.—When did the "Mary Ellen" sail from San Francisco in 1886? A.—I Hunk the date was the 2Sth of January. Q.—And she went along up the coast? A.—Coast of California and Oregon. Q.—Did she come into Victoria? A.—She did. Q.—And she left Victoria and went up the coast? A.— Landed her coast catch, went from Victoria along up the coast of Alaska. Q.—Y'ou got your white hunters that year from San Francisco, did you? A.—In San Francisco the whole crew was shipped. Q.—And you outfitted in San Francisco? A.—Outfitted in San Francisco. Q.—What kind of guns did you have? A.—There was two Smith guns, and the others I wouldn't be sure what kind of guns. he 20 265 Q.—Was each huner furnished with a gun or two guns? A.—Gun and a rifle. Q.^—And were the guns in good condition or were they old guns? A.—Some of them were new, and some of them had been used yeajfs before. Q.—Now witness, does it make any difference about the catch of a vessel, the capacity and experience of the hunters? A.—It does. Q.—Does it make a difference whether there are two men io in a boat, and as to whether they are canoes or boats? A.— Well, it makes a difference to white hunters whether there is two or three men in a boat. Q.—And if there were only two men in a boat instead of three, they would not have as good results, I suppose? A.— I don't think they would, no. Q.—And if they did not have as good guns, they would not have as good results, would they? A.—Well, you take an old gun, and sometimes it will shoot as well, and better, than a high priced one. Q.—A gun that will carry well you get more skins with than with a poor one of course? A.—Yes. Q.—When a man is out in a regular sealing boat he can carry more skins, can he not, on a trip, than he can in a canoe? A.—Well, I don't think he can, because you can skin all the seals that you are capable of getting in a day. Q.—Is it not a fact that the Indians cannot carry as many skins in their canoes as a white man can carry in his boat? A.—I don't think it is, that is, in a da3r's catch. Q.—They carry a whole seal back to the vessel, don't they? 30 A.—Not always. Q.—Is that the reason you had three men? A.—Three men in the boat? Q.—Ddn't they in those days? A.—Not all of them. Q.—Did the "Mary Ellen"? A.—No. Q.—You skinned them out in the small boat? A.—Skinned some in the small boat. Q.—If there were two men in the boat, could they do that? A.—They could. Q.—Where you had three men in a boat, could you capture 4° more of the seals that were actually shot, or wounded, than when you had two men in a boat ? A.—Yes. Q.—And that would make a difference would it? A.—It would, yes. Q.—What other contingencies are there, witness, that you know of, that would make a difference in results of one hunter as against another, or of one boat as against another? A. —I don't understand your question. Q.—What facts that 3'ou know of arise that make a difference in the catch of one boat as compared with another, ex- 5° cept the scarcity or plentifulness of seals? A.—Well, some hunters are superior to others, and then again it depends on your boat's crew. Q.—Your vessel's crew, 3'Ou mean? A.—The crew of the boat. , Q.—Of the small boat? A.—Of the small boat, yes, sir. Q.—What do you mean by that? What would depend upon the crew? As to whether they could reach the seal or not after it was shot? A.—It is in chasing a cripple, or in getting over more ground; a good crew can get over more ground in a day than a poor crew, and the more ground you go over the more seals you are liable to get. Q.—Do results depend any on the capacity of a master of a vessel as to his experience in the matter of locating? A.— It does. Q.—And the captain of your vessel, Daniel McLean, was one of the most experienced men in the business? A.—He was. 60 IO 20 30 40 50 60 go in the stern boat with you? A.—He have in the stern boat? A.— 266 Q.—And he and his brother, Alexander McLean, were perhaps the two most experienced men that ever left this port in those days? A.—I was never with Captain Alex. McLean, but he always had that reputation among the sealers. Q.—Does it depend any on the crew of the vessel itself? A.—That is the boat pullers and the boat steerers? Q.—No, the crew of the vessel itself? A.—Well, they are the sailors, the crew—boat pullers and steerers. Q.—Don't you carry some sailors that are not hunters or boat pullers or steerers? A.—Sometimes they carry a deck hand. Q— And did did, yes. Q.—How many men did you One man. Q.—You stated that you stayed in the sea that year a little later than the 24th of August, but that you took the last seal on the 24th? A.—That was the last day we hunted, but there was seal caught after that. I wouldn't say whether they were in the Sea or whether we got them on the way home, after we came through the Pass. One I am positive we got after we came through the Pass. Q.—The 24th of August was practically the close of the sealing that year in Behring sea, was it? A.—It was the close of our sealing. Q.—The close of your sealing? A.—That is what my books show. Q.—Did you come away earlier that year than others, or did you stay the ordinary limit of the sealing season? A.— That was the ordinary limit at that time. Q.—In those years? A.—In those years. Q.—And in 1887 it was about the limit? A.—About the limit in 1887. Q.—The boats that were outfitted to go from Victoria in 1S86 and 1887, were outfitted so that it would compel them to leave the Sea at that time? A.—The vessels that I have been in. Q.—Why did the season close on or about the 24th of August, 1886, and 1887? A.—Well coming on the first of September the weather commences to get bad. The northwesters set in about the latter part of August, and as a rule they take the first northwester about the last of August and steer for home. Q.—The season was shorter in these years than it is to-day, is that not a fact? A.—That is correct as regards the vessels that I have been in. Q.—And when they talk about the season extending into September, they do not speak of the years 1886 and 1887? A. —I never remained in there that late. Q.—And you never knew any one else to remain in there that late in those years? A.—No I did not. Q.—And although you stayed there that year until the 21st of August you did it to get a favorable wind to come down? A.—The captain said the first northwester he would get he would steer for home. Q.—And if a northwester came along before the 24th of August you would have taken advantage of that? A.—I do not Know that we would. Q.—If I gave you your location on the "Mary Ellen" on the 26th August, if I give you your latitude and longitude, would you know where abouts you were with reference to the Pribyloff Islands? A.—No, I would not. Q.-—It appears from the claim of the "Carolena" in this case, that on the 1st of August she was in north latitude 55.50 and west longitude 168.33. I will ask you if on the 2nd of August vou have any remembrance as to whether or not 20 267 the "Mary Ellen" was in north latitude 54." and west longti- tude 168."0? A.—I have not. Q.—I will show you the memorandum to refresh your recollection, and I ask you if that is a copy of the log of the "Mary Ellen" for 1896? A.—I cannot tell you. Q— Well, you have not read it have you? A.—I could not tell 3'ou an3r how. Q.—YTou were asked whether your hunters were as good as Cotsford and Dupoht and Shields. Will you tell me whether 10 these men were as good as your hunters? A.—I have not been shipmates with either one of them, but they have had a good reputation as hunters. Q.—Do you know whether Cotsford was ever out before the season of 1886? A.—I cannot tell you. Q.—What do you know about his reputation in 1886?' A. —Well among.the hunters they said Cotsford was a good hunter. Q.—I thought you said you did not know whether he was out before or not? A.—1 do not know. Q.—Did he have the reputation of having been out before? A.—Not that I know of. Q.—How did he have any reputation as a seal hunter? A. —I cannot sa3', I cannot tell you. Q.—Did he have any? A.—I did not say that he did, but I say the hunters told me he was a good hunter. Q.—Did they tell you in 1.886 or afterwards? A.—In 1886 as I understood. Q.—Had you heard of Dupont in 1886? A.—I cannot say, I do not remember. Q.—Had you heard of Shields in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—Had he been out before, do you know? A.—I cannot say. Q.—And what about McConahay, the other man? A.— I do not know the man. Q.—Will your books when compiled in the memorandum of Mr. .Bodwell show the number of skins taken in the stern boat? A.—I have the total number yes. Q.—You have the total number for the entire season? A. 40 —For the entire season. Q.—For Behring Sea? A.—Not for the Behring Sea, no. Q.—Was the stern boat in use in JUI37 in the Behring Sea? A.—She was. Q.—Was she as much in use as the other boats? A.—Oh, no. Q.—Was she in use do you know? 30 5° 60 as much in Juty as she was in August, A.—About the same. Q.—You used these boats a part of the time in the Behring Sea during July and August. A.—Some days I might get out half a day, and some days I might only get out for two hours. If a hunter came on board with seals to skin, the captain would put a flag out for me to come on board and skin them. Q.—I believe you said that you stayed in Behring Sea as long as you desired, and that you did not come out because of any seizures in 1886? A.—Not that I was aware of. Q.—What was the lay that was paid the hunters that year on your boat? A.—I did not see the articles, but I was told that they were receiving $1.50 per skin. Q.—Was that a lower or higher rate than was paid to hunters shipped at Yictoria? A.—I think it was about the same for the best hunters. Q.—Did you hear of the seizure of the "Carolena" in the Sea that year? A.—No not that I remember. Be-examined by Mr. Boelwell: Q:—You said that you heard about Shields in 1886, what did vou hear? A.—I heard that Shields was a good hunter. p?^- 20 ,268 Q.—And you say chat other things being equal, the man that covers the most ground will get the most seals? A.—■ That is my idea. Q.—How much lighter is a canoe than a boat in weight? A.—I cannot tell you. Q.—It is considerably lighter, is it? A.—It all depends on the size of the canoe. Q.—How do the lines of a canoe compare with those of a boat? A—They are a Utile different, and a great deal 10 sharper forward. Q.—If you had a strong man in a canoe, who was accustomed to handling it, as you had in the boat, would he go further under ordinary circumstances in the canoe than in the boat? A.—I think a canoe would go farther in a day than a boat with two scooting good men in her. Q.—Suppose you had a canoe rigged with rowlocks and oars and two good men in the canoe, how would the distance which they would cover in a day compare with .the distance which a boatpuller and a steerer would take the men in a boat? A.—In a canoe the distance would be greater. Q.—Does it take long to skin a seal? A.—Some hunters can skin a seal very quickly. It would take me about three or. four minutes, but others would do it half the time. Q.—I do not know whether you can answer this question or not, but I will put it to you, can you give us any idea how long you are between the time you get one seal and come up upon another? A.—Yrou may shoot one here and see another about one or two hundred yards away. Q.—I will put the question to you in this way. As a rule do you have sufficient interval of time between the moment you get one seal and come up upon another, to enable you to take care of the seals 3rou have in the boat, if you want to skin them and get them out of the way? A.—Not always. Q.—How many seals could you carry in this boat of yours without skinnning? A.—I think thirty-two brown seals is the most I ever had in the boat at once, that is without being skinned. Q.—You say your catch was a celebrated catch that year? Now what part of it was a celebrated catch? A.—The quantity. Q.—I know, but you have given the catch on the coast and the catch in the Sea, and which of them was the celebrated catch? A.—There was the most skins in the Sea. Q.—Y'ou got 1,168 skins on the Alaska coast? A.—Yes. Q._What about that catch? A.—That was considered a good catch, an exceptionally good catch, that many had never been taken there before. Q.—Did you often talk about, or hear that catch talked about? A'.—Y'es. Q.—Can you say generally what part of the sea you were sealing in that year, can you point it on the chart? A.— I cannot give it to yon correctly, only just what I was told. Q._Give it to us generally?' A.—Between 54."30 and 55" north latitude and 168" to 169" .30 west longitude. I was always under the impression that that was the latitude and longitude we were hunting in. We had been up, I understood, on board the vessel, to the north east of St. George. 60 Q.—When were you up there? A.—When we first entered the Sea. Q.—And then you worked in which direction? A.—To the southward. Q.—Do you know how far you were from the Pass when you started for home? A.—To the best of my recollection, a little after daylight in the morning, the captain came on deck. The wind was to the westward and he told me to 40 50 269 put the wheel up anel set the mainsail and keep her off. He gave the course which I forget now, but he said to set the main topmast stay .saii and that night we were down to the Pass. Q.—What kind of a sailing breeze did you have that day? A.—All the wind she could stagger on with. Q.—And a favorable wind? A.—Y'es. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— 10 Where is that pass, Mr. Bodwell? Mr. Bodwell:—It is a small pass to the westward of Pass Seventy-two. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—What is the name of the pass? Witness:—I do not remember the name of the pass. By Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Can you give the name from the chart? A.—Yes, there is the pass we came through, so I 20 was told. That is the next pass to the westward of Seventy-Two. Q.—What is the name of that pass? A.—It is marked "Siguam" on the chart. Q.—Y'ou say that you sometimes had to make sail on good sealing days now for what reason would you do that? A.— Well, if you did not think that there were any seal there, and you had a breeze you would make sail to bunt them up. Y'ou would see if there was any seal around before you low- 30 ered your boats. Q.—What is the best sealing weather? A.—I prefer a calm day for a shot gun. Q.—On what other days is it the custom to go sealing, I am speaking of course of the year 1886, on what kind of days did you go out sealing in that year? A.—When you are in among seal and it is fit to lower the boats, you would go out. Q.—Explain that 1 little more? What days would you consider it fit to lower the boat? A—When you are not in 4° danger of being capsized. Q.—Then you would go out if a breeze was blowing? A.— Y'es, if a breeze was blowing, you would go out sometimes with reefed sails on the boat. Q.—Would you go out in the fog? A.—Sometimes. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Would the canoe do as well as the boat for that purpose? The Witness:—Yes, yotsr Honour if the canoe was handled right she would sinnd as much as the boat. 5° By Mr. Bodwell:—How are these sealing canoes made and what kind are the3'? A.—Well as far as I know they are made out of a cedar log. Q.—I mean to say, in what way do they compare with a boat. Are they larger than the ordinary canoe? A.—They do not use very large canoes for sealing. The3' are not a large class of canoes that they use for sealing. Q.—-Are the Indians accustomed to go out to sea in these g0 canoes? A.—They are. Q.—Do you know an3ttiing about the distance they will ||||p.vel by sea, and where they go in these canoes? A.—They travel from Kyoquot to \ ictoria in canoes. Q.—Kyoejuof is on the west coast? A.—Yes. Q.—And it is pretty rough sea, is it not? A.—Yes, there is bad weather a I limes. Q.—And yet the Indians come around all the way in their canoes ? A.—Yes. 2/0 at 11 3° Q.—How far out to sea will they go straight out from land, do 3'ou know anything about that? A.—The Indians told me themselves that they had been off 20 or 30 miles. Q.—How much beam have these canoes? A.—I have never measured them. Q.—Can you give us an idea? A.—I suppose about three and a half feet. Q.—And how long are they? A.—Overhang and all, some of them would be about 25 feet, io Q-—Do you know anything about the appliances that are called seal bladders that are used in connection with these canoes. A.—I have never seen them used. Q.—You have usually taken white hunters and boats, have you not? A.—Yes, with the exception of one year. , The examination of the witness closed. Mr. Peters:—There was a witness named Andrew Laing, who, under order of this Commission, was examined before Mr. Small. I propose to put part of that evidence in so far as 20 it relates to this case. The part of the evidence which relates to this case, and which I intend to1 put in is the introductory part, viz., questions one, two, three, four and five, and the questions from 53 to 66 inclusive. The questions are numbered. The introductory part is as follows: "1. Q.—What is your full name? A.—Andrew Deas Laing. "2. Q.—In the year 1887 were you engaged on board the schooner W. P. Sayward? A.—I was. "3. Q.—What was your position on board the vessel? A. •—I was mate, trader and interpreter. "4. Q.—On what kind of a voyage did the "Sayward" sail? A.—Hunting seals. "5. Q.—Were you in Behring Sea that year? A.—Yes." Then there are the following questions and answers: "53. How long had you been sealing before 1887? A.— 1886 was the first year I went into Behring Sea, but I had been sealing on the coast from 1882. "54. Q.—You went into the Sea in 18S6 in what vessel? A.—The "W. P. Sayward." "55. Q.—In what capacity? A.—As mate. "56. Q— Did you keep a' diary that year? A.—Yes, the same book. "56. Q.^-What entries have you in that book respecting the catch for that year? A.—The number we caught eA'ery day in 1886. "58 Q.—Did you keep this book in the same way that you did in 1887, making the entries from day to day? A.—Ye>s. "(Counsel for Her Majesty offers the book to be marked as an exhibit in the case. The book is marked 'Exhibit A.R.S., Examiner." "58 1-2. Q.—Now will you look at the book and state the days on which you sealed in Behring Sea ffl 1886, and the number of seals caught each day? "(Counsel for the United States enters, a general objection to any and all testimony relating to the catch of any vessel in Behring Sea, except for the year in which the vessel was seized or warned, and before the date of the seizure or warning.") A.—The first seals we caught in 1886 was on July 6, in Behring Sea we got 11. "59. Q.—About where were you then? A.—About thirty miles off the Aleutian Islands. "60. Q.—In what direction were 3rou making? A.—We were going to the westward. On the 7th we got 2; on Hie 8th, 16; on the iOth, 5; 111 h, 10; 12th. 13; 13th, 46; 14th, 11; 15th, 1; 16th, 71; 17th, 107 18th, 147; 20th, 14; 21st, 101; 23rd,, 40 60 271 20 73; 21th, 39; 26th, 31; 27th 5; 28th, 18; 29th, 90; 30th, 123; 31st, 47; August 1st, 129; 2nd, 70; 3rd, 63; 5th, 67; 6th, 26; S'h, 7; Jth, i<~; 10th, 9, 1th, M l^th, 1; 23rd, 64; 24th, 12, making 1596 in Behring Sea. Adding 1114 for the coast catch makes in all 2,710. "61. Q.—What crew did you have that year? What class of crew, Indians or white men? A.—Principally Indians. "62. Q.—How many canoes? A.—Eight. "63. Q.—Didn't you have any boats? A.—One boat, the io boat that is aboard the schooner now, the stern boat. "64. Q.—Did the stern boat go out every day? A.—No. "65. Q.—On what occasion did it go out? A.—When it didn't have anything else to do? "66. Q.—Who went out in the stern boat? A.—Sometimes I, and sometimes the captain. "67. Q.—How were you sealing, with what kind of armst A.—Breach loading shot guns. The Indians used spears but we used guns in the boats. The Indians did not believe in guns in those da3'S." Mr. Peters:—That is all the evidence of Mr. Laing that we deem to be pertinent to the case. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Have 3'ou determined when this vessel, the "Carolena," was captured. Mr. Peters:—I understood it was half past seven o'de>ek in the morning. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—This says half-past seven in the evening of August 3rd. Mr. Peters:—My attention has been called to that. Probably I am wrong, but I will enquire into it and fix it all right. The Commissioner on the part of the "i'nited States:—I would be glad if counsel could give me the catch up to and including the first day of August. Mr. Peters:—We will give you that in regard to each vessel. ~I also hand in the little book referred to in Mr. Laing's evi- dence. 4°, Mr. Warren:—We desire to put in, in the evidence in this case, the following from the evidence of the witness Laing: ?o 60 "124. Q. Y'ou say you went into the Sea in 1886? A.— Y'es. "125. Q.—Y'ou took your last seals August 24? A.—Yes. "126. Q.—And then you left for Victoria? A.—Y'es. "221. Q— Did you obtain your half of the profits? A.—I have never got it. "222. Q.^—Did you make any profits that year? A.—I do not know whether we made any or not. When I would ask Mr. Warren for a statement he would say, I have not got any returns, yet." Then this further part of the cross-examination: "145. Q.—You state that you had 170 or 180 seals when you were seized? A.—No, sir, 178 taken in Behring sea, but we had 481 on board when the cutter took us. "146. Q.—Didn't you make an affidavit at one time that you had not taken any seals in Behring sea? A.—I did. "147. Q.—And now you say you took 170 or ISO? A.—Yes. "148. Q.—Why is this change? A.—I thought it was no use for me to stick out and say we didn't take them. "149. Q.—Then when you made your affidavit it was not true? A.—It wasn't true. "150. Did vou know it wasn't true when you made it? A. —I did. an sks 272 "151. Q.—Y'ou swore to it? A.—I don't know whether we swore to it or not? "152. Q.—Didn't you make an affidavit down here and swear to it? A.—1 wouldn't be positive who' it was before. "153. Q.—Before Mr. Belyea? A.—I wouldn't be certain." Mr. Peters:—I have handed in the little book referred to in the evidence. Mr. Lansing:—There was an objection made to that book 10 at the time it was presented. Mr. Peters:—The objection was to the character of the evidence and not to the book itself. Mr. Warren:—That is right, there was no objection to the book itself, but to the kind of evidence in the book. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What use is that book, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—Should there be any question of it. it will be 20 seen from this book that the entries were made from time to time and at the time. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is there any question as to that ? Mr. Peters:—There has been a question raised as to whether this witness in certain particulars is credible or not. In Mr. Laing's cross-examination it is brought out that Mr. Laing made an affidavit which he admits was not correct. ,0 I simply put that book in to show that the entries were made by him in that book in 1886. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is there any question, Mr. Warren, that the book itself is not authentic ? Mr.> Warren:—I raise no question as to the book itself, but onl3r as to the credibility of the witness. Mr. Peters:—For that reason I want the book to go in so that the Commissioners may see from its appearance that the 4° entries are authentic. The witness himself is unable to come here. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesf3':—If there is any question about the book it can go in for what it is worth. It may be filed, but it need not be printed as an exhibit. Mr. Peters:—The book need not be printed. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—My 50 learned confrere has stated the rule wfljh regard to this. These books are produced to refresh the memory of the witness. The party producing them cannot put them in, but if there is anything in them contradicting the witness they may be filed by the other party discrediting the book. I did not hear any question as to authenticity of this book and so I queried as to whether it was necessary it should go in or not. Mr. Peters:—It is imply filed for reference. ^ The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—If it goes into the custody of the secretary it must be marked as an exhibit. It might be put in but not printed. Book marked Exhibit 18, G. B., Claim No. 1. Mr. Dickinson:—May it please the Commissioners, your Honours admitted a paragraph or two from the United States case as an admission of the United States, showing that seals IO 20 30 40 50 60 273 were in a certain place' in the sea and could be readily hunted. I desire therefore to read a portion of the context from the American case. The. Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is there anv objection? Mr. Peters:—Should not that come in as a part of your own case? Mr. Dickinson:—I elo not think there can be any objection. Y'ou cannot quote a portion of a document without putting in the whole bearing on the portion you read. I do not propose to put in the whole American case, but I will put in an extract or two from it. Mr. Peters:—There is no objection. Mr. Dickinson:—There cannot very well be. Bearing in mind that the testimony admitted was with reference to the probable catch I read from pages 190 and 191, case of the United States, vol. 2: "There are two ways in which a seal may be destroyed by this method of hunting without being secured; one is by wounding it so that, though it still retains vitality enough to escape from the hunter, it subsequently dies from its injuries; the other is by the sinking of the seal, killed outright, before the boat can be brought alongside and the carcass seized by the hunter." Then on page 191 of the same volume: "This is self-evident when the fact is taken into consideration that the boat is in almost constant motion, and the mark is the small head of a seal, among the waves, thirty, forty, fifty, or, when a rifle is used, even a hundred yards from the hunter. Four other conditions -also modify this possibility of loss; first, the state of the weather, for if the water is rough the boat and the seal having more motion the percentage of those killed or stunned by the shot is much less than when the sea is smooth; second, the condition of the seal -shot at, for if breeching, the shot being at the body is not liable to paralyze the animal, though it may be as fatal as when the seal is asleep on the water with only a portion of its head exposed as a mark; third, the skill of the hunter is also to be considered; and, fourth, whether or not the seals are wild and hard to approach, in which case the hunter is from necessity compelled to fire at long range. The Indian hunters, with their spears, who are forced to approach much nearer the game than a white hunter armed with a rifle or shotgun, speak particularly of the increased timidity of the seals since firearms have been used in taking them. They also state that many seals taken by them have shot imbedded in their bodies, and some are badly wounded. This, besides being evidence of the great number wounded and lost, naturally tends to make the seals fearful of the approach of men. Not only has the increase in the number of 'white hunters in the.last few years made the seals much wilder than before firearms were used, but it has also added largely to the number of inexperienced hunters engaged in sealing." Then at the top of page 194 it says as follows: "Besides those lost by wounding, in many cases, others ki ed ouSght are not taken, because the specific gravity of the seal being greater than water it sinks before it can be secured. In order to save as many of the sinking seals as is possible, each boat carries a gaff, with a handle from four to six feet long, with which to grapple the carcass, if the 18 se^sa \m 274 point where it sank can be reached in time to do so. Of course in securing a sinking seal much depends on the distance from which the seal was shot, the condition of the water, whether rough or smooth, and whether or not darkened by the blood of the animal, as also the skill of the hunter in marking with his eye the place where the seal sank. It can, therefore, be seen that the range of possible and probable loss in case the seal is killed outright is certainly large, though not so great as when the seal is wounded. 10 "Under the circumstances, it is most difficult to fix the actual number of seals destro3'ed and not secured by the hunters using firearms; but it is a conservative estimate to say that such hunters lose at least two out of every three seals shot b3r them." I find on page 196, the following: "When the estimate, therefore, is placed at sixty-six seals unsecured out of every hundred killed with firearms, the prob- 2Q ability is jhat the percentage lost is even more. Certainly this percentage is constantly increasing, for the rapid growth of the sealing fleet in the last.two years has increased the number of unskilled hunters, and the constant hunting of the herd has made the seals wilder each year than the year before." That is all I desire to read until 3'our Honours have decided as to the admissibility of these affidavits. Yictor Jacobson was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. Direct examination bv Mr. Peters. 30 40 Q.—Mr. Jacobson, where do you live? A.—In Victoria. Q.—What is your occupation? A.—I am a master mariner and sealer. Q.—How long have you been engaged in that business? A.—I have had sealing vessels of my own since 1884 and I SqSS two 3'ears up on the coast in Capt. Spring's schooners, the "Mary Ellen" and the "Favorite" in that time. Q.—And 3'ou have been engaged in sealing up to the present time? A.—Y'es. Q.—And have you been interested in vessels? A.—Yes, : sir. .-. Q.—And 3'ou have a pretty good knowledge of sealing matters? A.—Well, about as good as any one in Victoria. ii-—And 3rou have been very successful, I believe, in sealing? A.—I am sealing still myself every year in the small boats from the vessel. Q.—Yrou are a hunter 3'ourself? A.—Yes. Q.—In the year 1886 I believe you were in the Behring -* sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—What ship did vou own in 1886? A.—The "Mountain Chief." Q.—She was not in the Behring sea that year? A.—No. Q.—Was she engaged in sealing that year? A.—Yes, on the coast. Q.—In 1887 did you go into "Behring sea? A.—Yes, sir. Ihe coast. Q.—In what vessel? A.—In the "Mountain Chief." go Q-—^° vou remember what her tonnage was? A.—About 23 tons. Q.—How many boats or canoes did she carry? A.—Four canoes and my own canoe. Q.—White hunters or Indians? A.—Indians. Q.—So that 3'our whole sealing outfit consisted of four e:anoes? A.—Four regular sealing canoes. 275 Q.—You sometimes went out in your own canoe? A.— Yes. Q.—But not regularly? A.—No. Q.—You carried no boat? A.—No. Q.—Can you tell me whether you used guns or spears? A. —The Indians used spears, but I useel a gun myself. Q.—Can -you tell me what time you Avent into the Behring sea? A.—About the last days of July. Q.—Have you a log or anything like that to give the in- i o formation. A.—No. Q.—You can only speak from memory? A.—That is all. Q.—Can you tell me when you left the Behring Sea ? A.— AVe left somewhere between the 14th and 17th of August. Q.—Why did you leave so early? A.—Well we saw the cutter coming into the Behring Sea and of course we got frightened. I thought that there would be a seizure again on account of my knowing that a seizure took place the year before. So we lowered all the sails down and the man of war came pretty close by us, four or five miles, I think, but 20 he did not see us. The next morning I saw a little schooner called the Triumph coming in and a man of war boarded her. He told me that he had just come from Sitka. I had then about 700 seals and got frightened and went right out. Q.—The reason you went out was that you heard of the seizure that had taken place in 1887? A.—Y'es. Q.—And that seizure was Capt. Warren's ship? A.—■ Yes. Q.—Tell me how many seals you got in Behring Sea in 1887. A.—Well, we had something oyer 700—I do not remember. o£ Q-—You cannot tell the exact amount ? A.—No. Q.—After you got into the Behring Sea do you remember how long it was before you began sealing that year? A.— As far as I remember we sealed there the very first day. I sealed at the mouth of the Pass before I' got in and I sealed inside of the pass. The weather happened to permit me to go to work just as soon as we got to the sea. We started right away. Q.—You cannot tell me when you got into the Sea? A.— No, not for certain, but it was the last days of July. 40 Q.—So that you were only in the Sea from the last days of July until the 17th of August? A.—Y'es, about that. Q.—And during that time could you fish every day? A.—■ No, we didn't get to fishing every day. Q.—Was the weather suitable to fish every day? A.—No. Q.—Is it ever suitable to fish every day in August in your experience 50 60 i? A —I never saw it. Q.—What sort of weather can you fish in? A.—We get the most in real fine calm weather, then we go Out with every boat, and it is able to stand the wind and the weather. In fact whenever we are able to go in a sealing boat we launch them. I have been out in a boat when there has been a gale of wind and running under double reef sails. Q.—Do you get seals in that weather? A.—We get seals whenever we can get out after them. Q.—What is the worst weather for catching seals? A.— The worst weather is rain and fog and wind. Q.—Do you remember any particular days catch that you made in the month of August.,'1887? A.—No. Q.—You do not remember the number of seals you caught any day ? A.—No. Q.—Do you remember the largest day's catch? A.—I' remember that the first day we got .in we had 97 or something, right away. At that time I was a new beginner and so I did not get many, but when I came about three o'clock that afternoon some of my Indians had been in with 18 seals and some with 23 seals and so on, and they were going out again for another load. mM I fit! II nil III \- ,1,1. I i |, | Uliilli 276 Mr. Dickinson:—That was in July, I suppose? A.—That was one of the last days of July about. By Mr. Peters: Q.—That is the first day you sealed in Behring Sea? A.— Yes. Q.—And that was about the end of July as far as you can remember? A.—Of course I do not remember exactly whether it was the last day of July or the first of August. 10 Q.—Besides fishing in Behring Sea in 1887 did you fish outside of Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In the same vessel? A.—Yes. Q.—With the same crew? A.—No, not with the same crew, but with some of them. Q.—With the same number of canoes? A.—I had more canoes on the coast. Q.—How many canoes did you have on the coast? A.—I had from 8 to 12 on the coast. Q.—Indians? A.—Yes Indians. 20 Q.—Can you tell me what was your coast catch in that 3'ear? A.—Something between 500 and 600, about 600. Q.—And that catch and the 700 you mentioned as being caught in Behring sea, that would represent your whole catch for that year? A.—Yes. Q.—You described the trip you had in 1887 and the number of seals you caught? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Would you tell us generally speaking, without going into particulars, how did that turn out as to the profit you made that year—just give it in round figures? A,—Do you 30 mean the sea and the coast catch too? Q.—Y'es. A.—I think as far as I can remember, I made between 14,000 and |5,000. Q.—That is net profit? A.—Yes. Q.—To whom did you sell your sealskins in 1887? A.—The first lot I shipped was sold by a man called McLagan. Q.—He shipped them to London for you. A.—Yes. Q.—What did they realize? A.—They realized between eight and nine dollars a skin. Q.—Would that first lot be what you called your coast 40 catch? -V.—The coast catch. Q.—What did you do with your Behring sea catch? A.— I sold them to' Mr. Davis or to Moss, I do not remember which of the two. Q.—What did you realize for "Ifjfen? A.—That I cannot remember, but it was somewhere between six and seven dollars for the Behring sea seals. | Q.—You have no exact statement of that? A.—No. Cross-examination by MrpJ/ansing. Q.—In speaking of your profits, how much did you receive 50 for 3'our skins in 1887? A.—Well, I received between eight and nine dollars for the coast catch. Q —What was the total amount you received for your skins that season? A.—I do not remember that. I do not remem- ber for certain how many seals I had as to'.number. Q.—What diet 3 our supplies consist of? A.—They consisted of ver.v little.* I make il from fSO to flOO for the coast, Q.—How much was your supply bill for the Behring sea? A.—From fROO to £400. Q.—That included 3'our provisions, your ammunition and - all the incidental supplies connected with the sealing outfit for the vo3'age? A.—I only had one gun at that time, 3'ou understand, and a keg of powder and a flask of rifle poweler, that is all I had that year. Q.—Diet that include all your supplies all through for the entire year? A.—Yres, that is in my case. Q.—H cost you between f380 and $500 for the supplies for the year? A,—Yes, 177 Q.—How many seals did you take that year, captain? A. —Do you mean altogether? A.—Yes. Q.—Well, I had something like 600 on the coast and the sea. Q.—Did you report those at the Custom House here? No. Q.—Did you give a statement to the Fishery Inspector to how many you took? A.—No. Q.—I read from the Report of Fisheries, Canada, 1887, at Co rOO in A.— as oage 248: io V "Gutman and Frank, owners, "Mountain Chief," 40 tons, 1 boat, 6 canoes, 17 men, number of seals from coast of B. C. and Oregon 500, value $3,500; number of seals from Behring sea 682, value $4,774; total number of skins, 1,182, total value $8,274." Is that a correct statement? A.—No. Q.—Where do they get these figures? A.—That is guess work. Gutman and Frank have never in their lives been the owner of the "Mountain Chief." I was the first owner after 20 t'ie Si-wash built her, and I owned her until 1 sold her back to the Siwash again. Q.—Do you think that remark applies to all the calculations in the reports for 1886 and 1887—do you think they are guess work? A.—As far as I know. At that time the Customs House had nothing to do with our business at all as far as catching seals is concerned. We handled no books, and we kept no account for the Custom House officer, or anything of that kind. We simply entered and cleared and we could catch as many seals and catch them wherever we liked. "30 Q.—Then if 3'ou were shown a table made up from the report of the Fisheries Commissioner on which the aver age catch of each vessel was based, would you believe it to be correct? A.—Well, as regards other cases of course, the vessels that went into the business and kept books might have given the returns. Q.—I ask you about the 3'ears 1886 and 1887? A.—Well, they might have been kept by the captains. Q.—Would you believe these figures? A.—I might believe them in some cases, there might be captains that kept rec- 40 ords of the seals they caught in the log books, but I did not. Q.—On what day did you enter the Behring sea that year? A.—Some of the last days in July, but I cannot say the day. Q.—What vessels did you speak in the sea? A.—I think I spoke the Sylvia Handy. Q.—On what day? A.—I cannot say that. I also spoke the little "Triumph." Q.—What do 3'ou mean by the little "Triumph"? A.— Well, she was a small schooner of about 14 or 15 tons. Q.—Is that the boat that belonged to George Burns in 50 these years? A.—Yes. I cannot state to a certainty if I saw any other or not. I was looking for schooners because I got short of salt and one thing or another. Q.—That is after you had been in the Sea sometime? A.— No, the first part of it. Q.—How long had you been in the Sea when you spoke to the Triumph. A.—"Well 1 had been in the Sea from the last day of July until about the 14th of August when I spoke her. Q.—You say you spoke her about the 14th of August? A. —Yes. Q.—Captain, 30U haA'e a claim before this commission? A. I have. Q.—For the year 1889? A.—Yes. Q.—For what vessel? A.—For the "Minnie?" Q.—What is the amount of that claim? A.—$22,000, I think? Q.—And the principal part of that claim is made up ter what. A.—The same as the rest of the claims. r^*n*57?rpp" 278 10 20 Q.—You don't answer my question. Is it made up principally for the balance of catch that you might have taken if you had not been interfered with? A.—It was made up first for the 420 seals they took away, and the salt, and my two guns, and then from what I might have taken had they left me. alone. Q.—Is that the principal part of the claim? A.—I suppose so. Q.—How much does that amount to? A.—Well my chain was made up according to the rest of the vessels' claims, that is all I know. Q.—You do not know what the claim is for the balance of catch? A.—No, I cannot state that now. Q.—You never made a statement as to your probable balance of the catch ? A.—I suppose 1 did, the same as the rest of them. Q.—When you saw the little "Triumph" how far from the seal islands was she? A.—From which islands? Q.—The seal islands? A.—Oh, any amount of way, we were over 100 miles. Q.—And how far from Ounalaska? A.—Not very far. Between 20 and 30 miles as near as I can remember. Inside of the Unimak pass. Q.—Which way was she cruising? A.—She was not cruising at all, she was catching seals the same as I did myself that day. Q.—She had her boats out at the same time? A.—She had something over 60 seals, and I had something between 60 and 70 that day. I went from the small boat on boarel her. Be-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Y'ou were asked, Mr. Jacobson, with regarel to your expenses on the "Mountain Chief?" A.—Yes. Q.—Let me in the first place ask you who built the "Moun-• tain Chief?" A.—Some Indians up north on the Nanass ■ river, somewhere. Q.—Who did they build her for? A.—Well, themselves, I suppose. Q.—Was there any white men employed about the building of the ship? A.—I think there was one who kept a store for the Indians together with them. Q.—Were there any skilled workmen employed on her? A. No. Q.—When you went down in her in 1887 you stated you had Indians to hunt and that you only carried one gun. A.-— Only one gun and a rifle. Q.—So that your ammunition supply would not be very large? A.—It was a keg of powder at $6 and a flask of 50 powder at six bits. Q.—I presume you had some shot? A.—Oh, yes, there ' was shot. Q.—But the ammunition supply was small? A.—It did not' amount to anything much. Q.—Now, with regard to your provision bill, did you take any provisioxis for the Indians? A.—No. Q.—Who supplied them? A.—They would be supplied jwfth their own dry fish and fish heads, and all their own food, and the eating of seal was the biggest part of it. Q.—So that as a fact you did not supply the provisions? A.—Very little, only some sugar and tea and biscuits. Q.—If you had supplied the provisions it would cost more. A.—Yes,' the way we do now, it would cost about $1,000. Q.—And if you employed white men how would the expense of provisioning compare with employing Indians at that time? A.—I had white men on one schooner in 1893 anel 1894, and Indians on another. 40 60 279 Q-—Is there a difference between them as regards the cost? A.—Well, I got over 2,300 seals with the Indians, at a cost, for outfit of about $1,200, while the "Mary Ellen's" bill with white men, for twenty three white men cost me $4,000 for food. That is the difference. Q.—Is there any reason why there would not be the same difference in that respect in 1887? A.—It would have been the same thing, if we employed white men and Indians as in 1893 and 1894. io Q-—Now, you were asked with regard to a certain fishery report. As a matter of fact, in the year 1887 were you required to put in any return whatever? A.—No statement at all. Q.—You were not asked to? A.—I never was asked then, the simple thing we had to do was to enter and clear and go any where we liked and do what we pleased. Q.—Were you instructed by any person at that time to keep a log showing Avhat seals you caught? A.—N.». Q.—But you are now? A.—Yes. 20 Q.—in that respect an alteration has taken place? A.— Yes. Q.—But in 1887 you were not required to do that? A.—I didn't ship a man on the articles then. Q.—In 1887, as a matter of fact, did you give to any person ? A.—Not to my knowledge that is all I know. Q.—For instance, did you give any return to any person that this ship was owned by Gutman & Frank? A.—No. Q.—That is an error in that statement? A.—She was 3° owned by me. Q.—You sold her back to the Siwash? A.—Yes. Q.—You sold her back to the same people you bought her from? A.—Well, not exactly, because I did not buy her from the Indians, but the Indians built the boat and I bought her from the man that got her from them and whose name I forget. Q.—That is not material, but at all events you sold her back to the Siwash? A.—I sold her to the Indians, yes. Q.—You stated in answer to questions put to you by 4° Mr. Lansing, that in 1887 you got short of supplies, if I understood you aright? A.—No, not of supplies, but I was a little short of salt. Q.—And you were anxious to meet vessels on that occasion ? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you get any supplies from any vessels? A.—No. Mr. Peters:—I do not propose to re-examine this witness as to the cross-examination with regard to the case of 1889, I will let that stand on its own basis. any return I sold my seals, 50 Examination of Mr. Jacobson closed. 60 Captain J. B. Warren, (already examined as a witness in the case) re-called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and duly sworn: Direct examination by Mr. Peters. Q.—You told us, Captain Warreh, that you had command of the "Dolphin" in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—And you sailed on her in Behring sea? A.—I sailed on her in 1886, both on the coast and the sea. Q.—At what time of the year did you enter the sea? A.— On the 2nd of July. Q.—And on what time did you leave it? A.—On the 12th of August. Q.—What was your total catch from the coast and in the sea that year? A'.—My total catch for that year was about 2,673, I think. 2.80 IO 20 30 40 Q.—And what did you catch within the Behring sea proper? A.—2.025, I think. However, there were, twelve more than that.' Q.—Did you keep a journal or a diary from day to day during that season? A.—I did. Q.—Have you it with 3'ou? A.—Yres. Q.—When did you make these entries? A.—At the time. Q.—In that book? A.—Y'es. Q.—At what time did you make them? A.—After the day's work, if I had time that night, or else the next morn ing. Q.—You have told us you got into the sea about the 2nd of July. Would you turn to that memorandum book in your hand to about that date. Before looking at that just state how many canoes 3'ou had on the "Dolphin"? A.—I had 12 canoes and one boat. Q.— Was the boat available for the time yon were in the sea? A.—No, the boat was run by the engineer. We lost the boat on the 4th of July, I think il was, and got her back on the 24th. Q.—You lost the boat for about 21 days? A.—Yes. Q.—How many hunters were in these canoes? A.—-Two in each. Q.—Were they Indians or white men? A.—Indians. Q.—And how many of them hunted? A.—There were not always two hunters, sometimes there was merely a canoe steerer and an experienced Indian hunter. Sometimes there would be two experienced Indian hunters in the canoe. Q.—How many all told, in the canoe? A.—Two. Sometimes they would be both experienced hunters, and one would paddle and the other one would strike the seal, or sometimes they would both strike the seal. Q.—And actually hunting in each canoe how many were there? A.—Two. Q.—But you say that one had to paddle and manage the canoe? A.—Well, sometimes if they came on two seals, both would strike. Q.—But as a rule one was to manage the canoe and the other to hunt or strike the seal? A.—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Were these two persons the onlv ones in the canoe? 5o Witness:—That is all. By Sir Charles Tupper: Q.—What vou mean by there being two hunters is that they both had spears and were prepared to hunt if they got the chance? A.—They were both practical spears' men. Q.—Looking at that diary of 3*ours, would you turn to July the 2nd— Sir Charles Tupper:—Willi the consent of Ihe Commissioners and of counsel on the other side, perhaps I had better lead the witness on this evidence so as to expedite matters. He has a book in his hand and I have notes of that book. 60 To witness: Q.—On July the 2nd have you an entry there of entering the pass with the "Thornton" in tow? A.—Yes. Q.—And you spoke the "Alfred Adams" on that date?. A. —The "Adams" was going in at the same time. ii.—What pass did you enter? A.—The Unimack. Q.—When did you sail for the sealing ground? A.—That same evening. Q.—When did you lower canoes in the Behring sea? A.— I do not think that we started to hunt that da3\ till hough we got one seal. 281 Q.—Y'ou are speaking of the 2nd of July? A.—Yes, I got one seal that same afternoon. Q.—And I suppose on the 3rd of July you lowered the canoes? A.—We lowered the canoes and I got 87 seals that day. Q.—Are those entered in your diary? A.—Yes, this is taken from the diary. Q.—You have the diary there? A.—Yes. Q.—Have you' got the latitude and longitude in which your io ship was on the 3rd of July, 1887? A.—Latitude 54 degrees 54 minutes north, and longitude 166 degrees 22 minutes west. Q.—Now on the 4th of July you caught no seals? A.—No. Q.—And On the 5th of July what did you do? A.—On the 5th of July I don't think I caught any seals. Q.—And on the 6th of July you caught none? A.—No, I was hunting for my boat. Q.—And on the 7th of July? A.—The same. Q.—And on 1 he 8th of July? A.—On the 8th of July I caught 53 seals. 20 Q-—Can you give the position of your schooner on that day? A.—Latitude 55 degrees 24 minutes north, longitude 164 degree's 19 minutes west. Q.—And on the 9th of July, what did yon do? A.—I caught 22 seals on the 9th. Q.—Look at your journal and see how the 22 were caught? A-—21 were caught by the canoes and one was shot by the mate. Q.—From where? A.—From the schooner. Q.—What was your position on the 9th? A.—Latitude 55 30 degrees 20 minutes north, and longitude 164 degrees 57 minutes west. Q.—And on the 10th of July did you get any seals? A.—I got no seals on the 10th I believe. Q.—How many did you get on the 11th of July? A.—43 seals. Q.—Anrthing else? A.—Three pups, but there were really only 43 seals. Q.—What was your position on that day? A.—Latitude 55.13 north and longitude 165.35 west. 4° Q.—And on the 12th of July how many seals did you take? A.—31. Q.—Where did the canoes seal that day, were they near the ship? A.—The canoes had to stay close to the vessel on account of the fog. Q.—How many seals did you catch on July the 13th? A.— 68. Q.—And what position was the ship in that day? A.— Latitude 54.59 north, Longitude 166.39 west. Q.—And on the 14th of July how many seals did vou get? 50 A.—162. Q.—What was the position of the ship that day? A.— Latitude 55.07 north, Longitude 166.48 west; Q.—On the loth of July how many seals did you get? A. —29. Q.—What was thjfe. position ->f the ship that day? A.— Latitude 55 degrees 11 minutes north, longitude 166 degrees 51 minutes west. Q.—How many seals did you get on the 16th of July? A. 60 Q.—What wiS-the position of the ship that day? A.— Latitude 55.36 north, Longitude 167.35 west. Q.—How many seals did you get on,the 17th of July? A. •14. Q.—What was the position of your ship on that day? A.— Latitude 55.30 north and longitude 168 west. Q.—-TSie Commissioner on the part of the United Slates:— Had not the witness better read that all right through? rr&f9#srr'r IO 20 30 40 So 60 will save time. (To the 282 Sir Charles Tupper:—Perhaps it witness): Q.—Take the position of the ship and the catch each day and state the number of seals caught each day autl the lati tude and longitude of the ship without my asking you ? A.— On the 18th of July we got 196 seals, and the latitude was 55.37 north, longitude 168.24 west. The next day I took seals appears to be on the 21st Jul v. I took 76 seals that dav; latitude 55.19 north, longitude'l67.47 west. On the 22nd of July I took 35 seals; latitude 55.19 north, longitude 168.29 west. Oh the'^Brd I took 63 seals, latitude 55.25 north, longitude 168.9 west. Q.—On that day did 3'ou see any other sealers? A.—I sighted the "Carolena." On the 24th'of July I took 14 seals; latitude 56.5 north, longitude 167.30 west. That day we sighted the "Grace," and got our boat back. On the 25th of July we took 3 seals; latitude 56.4 north, longitude 166.42 west. On the 26th of July we caught nothing. On the 27th of July we caught 1 seals, latitude 55.16 north, longitude lught 45 seals; lati- A.—Fair at noon, July we caught 90 165.34 west. On the 28th of July we c tude 55.1 north, longitude 165.30 west. Q.—How was the weather that day? foggy, considerably so. Q.—Proceed now. A.—On the 29th o seals; latitude 51.54 north longitude 166.43 west. Q.— What sort of weather that day? A—Cloudy day but fine, very little wind. On July 30th we caught 184 seals; latitude 54:49- north, longitude 1.67:03 west. On the 31st of July we caught 186 seals; latitude 54:41 north, longitude 167:21 west. Q.—What sore of weather that day? A.—Thick fog in the morning and didn't lower boats until 9 o'clock. On August 1st we got 193 seals, latitude 54.39 north, longitude 167.36 west. On August 2nd about 8:15 the cutter passed with three schooners in tow. That day we only got 26 seals, latitude 54.49 north, longitude 167.57 west. Q.—That is your latitude and longitude on the 2nd of August? A.—Yes, that would be about noon. Q.—Did you make out what the cutter was? A.—I made out that she was a cutter with three sealers in tow. Q.—What did you do then? A.—I called in the canoes and started to the south to leave the ground that I was in, with the object of going to fill up with water to be ready to go home. Q.—Had the sight of the cutter an3dhing to do with your steering south? A.—It had everything to do with it. Q.—Give your latitude and longitude for the next day? A. —On August the 3rd, latitude 54.08 north, longitude 166.58 west. On August 4th we came to anchor in a small harbor with a very long name, which I cannot make out. Q.—On the 3rd of August did 3'ou take any seals? A.—On the 3rd of August I got 56 seals. Q.—On your southerlv course you put your boats out? A. —Yes. Q.—Proceed now' A.—The next day I filled up with water, I came out again on the 5th, or between the night of the 4th and 5th, and on the 5th of August I got two seals; latitude 54.6 north longitude 167.18 west. On the 6th of August I got 63 seals; latitude 55.1 north, longitude 167.41 west. On the 7th of August I got no seals, and on the 8th of August I got 16 seals. Q.—What did you sec on the 8th of August besides seals? A.—It was thick weather and I see I was lying to most of the time. Q.—Have you any other entry as to sighting vessels on that day? A.—No, the 16 seals we got is the principal entry. Our latitude was 54.44 north, longitude 166.20 west. On IO 20 30 40 50 60 283 August the 9th there was a thick fog until 2 p.m., latitude 54.40 north, longitude 166.26 west. We caught 45 seals in the afternoon, and it set in foggy again. On August the 10th we caught 141 seals; latitude 54.41 north, longitude 166.28 west. On August 11th we caught 14 seals; longitude 54.45 north, longitude 166.9 west. Q.—Now, did you seal after that in that year? A.—Not that year. Q.—You proceeded straight for Victoria? A.—I proceeded down the coast just to land the Indians and then came straight up here. Q.—What part of the coast? A.—Clayoquot. Q.—And then you came right to Victoria? A.—Yes. Q.—In 1887 I believe you were in the sea again, but you were seized almost as soon as you got in? A.—Yes. Q.—That was early in July? A.—Yes. Q.—How many days were you sealing, do you remember? A.—Well, on four da3's I caught seals. One day I got one, but I think that was shot from the vessel. Q.—What dav were you seized? A.—On the 12th. Q.—By what"cutter." A.—The "Bush." Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—What is the tonnage of the "Dolphin"? A.—I think it was 73. Q.—Begistered tonnage. A.—Registered tonnage? Q.—And she was equipped with steam, I believe? A.— Yes. Q.—Was she using steam power in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—I suppose she could move around where a sailing vessel could not? A.—Yes, sometimes, if we wanted to. Q.—You could put yourselves in a position where the seals were better than could a sailing vessel? A.—If it was calm we could. Q.—It was calm sometimes? A.—Y'es. Q.—The best sealing weather is when it is calm? A.— Yes, as a rule, or light winds. Q.—And on a perfectly still day, if it were possible for a sailing vessel to get where the seals were she would meet with the best results, would she not? A.—Yes, if she wished to. Q.—And your steam schooner could do that. A.—Yes, if she wanted to move her position she could do so better than a sailing vessel in a calm day. Q.—You could move your steam vessel on a calm elay? A. Yes. Q.—Then on the best days for sealing the "Dolphin" could get around when such a vessel as the "Carolena" could not? A.—She could do it, but as a rule we lay still with the vessel when sealing. Q.;—Do the seals come around the ship? A.—No, the small boats go for the seal. Q—How far out from the ship do the small boats go? A. —They go just until they can see the masts of the vessel. Q.—Does a steam vessel pick the boats up, or do they return to her? A.—They return. We do not know where the boats are, and we have to wait or we would lose them. Q.—The "Dolphin" appears to have not moved much between the 3rd of Juty, when you commenced sealing in Behring Sea in 1886 and until you sighted the "Corwin?" A.— Oh, yes, she moved considerable. Q.—Were there any days during the year that you moved more than the "Carolena" could have moved? A.—I do not know in the Sea. Q.—Were there any windy days in that year? A.—Some 2^4 days were very windy and some days very calm, some days dead calm. Q-—Did you hear the testimony of the witness, Captain Bragg, this morning regarding da3Ts in that year when it was impossible for him to do any sealing? A —Yes, I heard him ime bad da3rs for him when I had good sealing days. Q.—You appear to have hunted every day in July, practically? A.—Yery nearly. Q.—And what would be the difference in this respect between your vessel and the "M.uy Ellen?" -V.—The difference in this case wa.s that she was farther to the westward out in the Behring Sea, while I was inside and in shelter. Q.—That would make a difference, would it? A.—It makes quite a difference. Q.—When were you in sight of the "Carolena?"A.—I be- ieve I read out that it was on the 23rd of July. Q.—I take it you did not see her on any other da3"? A.— I do not remember now, but if il is noted in the book I did. Q.—Tell me the latitude and longitude of your ship on the 10th of August? A.—Latitude 54.41 north, longitude 166.28 west. Q.—How far and in what direction would the "Mary Ellen" be, if she was in latitude 153.50 north and longitude 170.30 west, can 3'ou tell? A.—She would be four degrees, of longitude further to the westward. Q.—How many miles? A.—Betwen 150 and 200 marine miles; 60 minutes of longitude is not a full marine mile. Mr. Peters:—I do not wish this to go down on the notes as the statement that it is the log of the "Mary Ellen." Mr. Y\ arren:—I do not put it on the record as that. 1 said if the "Mary Ellen" was in such a position how far away would she be? A.—On that day I was well in to land in the neighborhood of Unimak Pass. Q.—Y'ou appear to have taken 141 seals on that day? A. Yes. Q.—Was the sealing as good down there as it had been up in the Sea? A.—I got into a batch that day and did well, considering the place. Q.—On the 6th of August you appear to have taken 63 seals. Had you moved down toward the pass at that time? A.—1 was coming towards the pass at that time? Q.—I understood you to say that the "Dolphin" had eight canoes that year? A.—Twelve canoes. Q.—And two Indians iu a canoe? A.—Y'es. Q.—And both the Indians were sometimes hunting? A.— The two Indians went, together in the same canoe to hunt. Q.—They were using spears, were they not? A.—Most of them used spears, but I think some of them had guns. Q.—Were they all furnished with guns that year? A.—1 do not think they all had guns, but some e>f them had guns. Q.—They practically did their sealing that year with spears? Yes, sir. Q.—And both the Indians in each canoe were equipped with spe-ars? A.—YTes, they were all equipped with spears. Q.—And 3'ou did not see the Indians use the spear in the boats ? A.—I have seen them spear. Q.—Both at the same time? A.—I know they both speared sometimes. Q.—As a matter of fact, vou did not see the canoes when they were away about their business sealing? Only some of the time. Q.—And it may be possible that both of the Indians hunted most of the time? A—It might be possible for till 1 know. Q.—What is the probability as to that? A.—1 think some of the time thev did. 28S Q.—Did you make, a report to the British Commissioners here at Victoria some years ago? A.—I do not remember doing so. Q.—Did you ever state that your Behring Sea catch in 1886 on the "Dolphin" was 960? A—No. Q.—You never diet? A.—No. I never did. Q.—Did you ever state that vour coast catch on the "Dolphin" in 1886 was 1040? A.—No. IO M. Peters:—If my learned friend proposes to contradict this witness on any point of this kind, that is hardly the way to lay the foundation. If he is cross-examining him on any statement, it is usual to put the statement in the hands of the witness. Mr. Warren:—The object of producing these books and asking the witness about them, is to show the unreliability of these statistics more than for any other purpose. 20 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—We know nothing about your statistics or this so-called report. I think I am right in saying that the usual mode of cross-examining is to show the witness a professed statement and ask him if he niade it. Mr. Dickinson:—There is no doubt that that is the rule if he is examined about a statement made by him, but we have not made that assertion. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—As I understand it is not asserted that this is a statement pur- 3 porting to be made b3' him. He is simplJ' asked if he made that statement. It is not a letter signed by him or anything of that sort. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—We assumeel that Mr. Warren was reading from a book which he' had in his hands, in putting the question to the witness. Mr. Warren:—I did read from a book. 40 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—From a report made hy the witness, Captain Warren? Mr. Warren:—No, from a report of the Behring Sea Commission. Witness:—I understand what he was reading from. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren continued. Capt. Warren, I show 3-011 volume 4 of the Fur Seal Arbi- 5° tration proceedings, American re-print, being the case of Great Pritain and I call your attention to the table containd on the marginal paging 4 known as Exhibit "R B," and I ask 3'ou if 3'ou are not the originator of that table? A.—Very, like!3' I am. Q.—Did you make that up from your own knowledge or from official sources? A.—From.just such information as I could get I had no way to get definite information. Q.—Did you swear or affirm in the affidavit that you took /r this from the Canadian Fisheries report? A.—I do not remember that. Q.—Did you take it from the Canadian Fisheries Report? A.—I could not say just what I took it from, I had to take it from whatever I could get. Q.—What did you use that table for? A.—To make up the average catch of the season, I think. Q.—Just tell us how you compiled that table? A.—I took the catch of certain schooners in Behring Sea for 1886, ves- 1 I' i 10 286 sels that I knew to be in the sea, and those I did not know to be in the sea I left out. Q.—Where did you get the information as to what they caught in Behring Sea? A.—From such reports as I could get from sealers or any other way I could get at it. . Q.—I call your attention to the affidavit, or declaration, as you please to call it, found in marginal pages 2 and 3 of the same volume of the British case, and I direct your attention specifically to paragraph 8, and I ask you if you did not swear there that the table came from the Canadian Fisheries Report? A.—I suppose I took it from that report and any other sources that I could get it from. Q.—I desire to read this paragraph 8 into the record, and I call the witness' attention to this: "The exhibit hereto annexed is the statement of the catch of 13 sealing vessels in and about the Behring Sea, during so much of the season A.D. 1886, as they were in Behring Sea." It is declared here that that is "substantial, true and correct," and you say 20 that this is, "substantial, true and correct from your own personal knowledge." Do you mean to swear, Captain Warren, that Schedule B is correct from your own personal knowledge? A.—As far as I know that is the catch for the schexmers of 1886. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—That is not paragraph 8. So that the record will be right, it is well to read the whole of paragraph 8 to which you have called the attention of the witness. 3o Mr. Warren:—Very well, I will read paragraph 8. It is as follows: 8. The Exhibit (B) hereto annexed is a statement of the catch of thirteen sealing vessels in and about the Behring Sea during so much of the season of A.D. 1886 as they were in Behring Sea. The statement is taken from the report of the inspector of fisheries for the Province of British Columbia for the year 1886, as contained in the report of the De- 40 partment of Fisheries for Canada at pages 248 and 249, and I verily say, from personal knowledge of the facts, that the said statement is substantial, true and correct. The schooners "Carolena," meaning the "Carolena" herein mentioned, and "Thornton" and "Onward" were seized on the 1st and 2nd August, 1886, and their voyages thus broken up; the schooners "Mary Taylor," "Mountain Chief," "Rustler" and "Kate," not having been in Behring Sea during the season of 1886, the catch of these above-named schooners are not included in estimating the average catch in Behring Sea for that year. 5° On account of the seizures made on the 1st and 2nd August aforesaid, and of the schooner "Favourite" being ordered out of the sea by the commander of the said "Corwin," the thirteen vessels mentioned in Exhibit (B), with one or two exceptions, left Behring Sea or the best sealing grounds therein, long before the close of the sealing season, and thus the average catch as found in Exhibit (B) is fully, as I verily believe, 500 skins less than it would have been had they all remained till the end of the season. 60 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—Had you not better read Ex- - hibit "B" into that? Mr. Warren:—Exhibit "B" is as follows:— EXHIBIT "B." Number of seals taken by each of the following thirteen sealing vessels during the year 1886 in and about Behring IO 20 30 40 60 287 Sea, most of the said -vessels leaving the Sea before the end of the season, fearing capture: No. of Vessels. Seal Skins. "Pathfinder" 1,766 ' ' "Mary Ellen" 4,256 "Theresa" 2,625 "Favourite" 3,325 "Black Diamond" 1,760 "A If red Adams" 2,465 "A ctive" 2,275 "City of San Diego" l',620 "Silvia Handy" 1,587 "Dolphin" fllll 2,601 "Anna Heck" 1,400 "Grace" 2,550 "Sayward" |§g||g§ 2,725 . Total catch 30,955 Average per vessel 2,381 (To witness): Q.—Captain Warren, when you stated that the catch of the "Mary Ellen" was 4,256 skins in Behring Sea, is that right? A.—I suppose that is the information I had at the time. Q.—Did you hear the witness testify that he took 1869 outside of Behring Sea? A.—I heard him say so this morning, yes. Q.—When you said the "Favourite" took 2,325 in Behring Sea, did you understand that that included the coast catch as well? A.—This morning? Q.—No, when you made the statement. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—Exhibit "B," instead of stating that any of these vessels took so many sealskins in Behring Sea, says: "Number of- sealskins taken by each of the following I h i r- teen sealing, vessels during the year 1886 in and about the Behring Sea." The Witness:—That is what I put the "about" there for; because I did not know the difference in the catch. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—In paragraph 8 the witness says "in Behring Sea," and it seems to me the cross-examination should go along. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—I objected to the statement that the witness said these seals were taken in Behring Sea as being based on Exhibit "B." Mr. Warren:—The witness based a claim for the average catch in Behring Sea upon the catch which he knew perfectly well was not made -in Behring Sea. This is the object of the cr oss-examinati on. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It is quite clear, Mr. Warren, and you had better put your question. (Cross-examination by Mr. Warren continued): Q.—Do you call the dplifornia coast "about" Behring Sea? A.—TheTacific Ocean is about I Mi ring Sea. Q.—Are the California and Oregon coasts5about Behring Sea? A.—It is some distance from Behring Sea. 288 Q.—How far is it from Behring. Sea? A.—1,400 or 1,500= mile8. Q.—The California coast? A.—Part of it would be about 1,600 mile^s, I suppose. Q.—When you used that phraseology, "In and .about Behring Sea," did you intend that to cover the California and Oregon coasts? A.—It was this way: I did not know what she caught in the Sea and what outside. I could not separate them, because I had not the information in m3' posses- io sion. I was instructed at Ottawa to make out the catch for Behring Sea, which I could not possibly do, for I did not have the figures, and I put it in that way. Q.—Did you see the little "Triumph" in Behring Sea in 1886? A.—I do not remember seeing her there in 1886. Q.—What vessels did you see in the Sea in 1886? A.—I saw the "Onward," the "Carolena," the "Favourite," the "Anna Beck," the "Grace," the "Laura," and an American vessel, and another American vessel I do not remember. Q.—Captain Warren, do you think that the catch of the 20 "Dolphin," being a vessel about 70 tons, carrying twelve canoes and two hunters in a canoe, is a fair basis on which to estimate the' prospective catch of the "Carolena," which was I boat of 27 tons, having four canoes, and one hunter in each canoe? A.—I had two in each canoe, the same as them; proportionate, yes. Q.—Answer the question, please. A.—I say proportionate. Q.—What do you mean by that? A.—I do not think that the "Carolena" should catch as man3r seals as the "Dolphin" 3° should catch. Q.—Should she take as many in each canoe? A.—I do not see any reason why she should not. Q.—Then there is no advantage in a steam vessel? A.— On the sealing grounds we do not have to use the steam, for we lie idle'. We do not erven use the sails except very little. We generally lay under the foresail. Steam is an advantage in going in for water and things like that. Q.—Does the result of the sealing voyage depend to any extent on the experience of the hunters? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—Do you know" what the. capacity was of the hunters of the "Carolena" in 1886? A.—I know very little, about them except by report. They were reported to be good average hunters. Re-Direct examination by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. Q.—Captain Warren, you were asked in regard to the declaration in the ltritish case in connection with the claim of the "Carolena," and as to an exhibit which purports to give the number of skins taken by each of the following thirteen sealing vessels during the year-1886 in and about the Behring Sea." Will you look at that Exhibit (B) to which your attention was called, and I will read from the annual report oi the Department of Fisheries of the Dominion of Canada for the year 1886, the statistics which appear there. Y'ou will tell me whether these' figures disagree from that Exhibit. 1766 skins were taken by the "Pathfinde>r" in 1886. What is the numberyou have got there? A.—1766: ii.—The "Mary Ellen," 4,256. What is the number in that Exhibit? A.—It is the same here. Q.—The ."Theresa," 2,625; what is the number in that exhibit? A.—It is the same here. Q.—rThe "Favourite," 3,325; what is the number in that ex^ hibit? A.—It is 2,325 here. <J.—The "Black Diamond," 1,760? A.— It is the same .here. q.—The -Alfred Adams," 2.465? A.—It is the same here. Q.—Tin "Active," 2,275? A.—It is the same here. Q.—The "Dolphin.'' 2,061? A.—It is the same here. 40 5o 60 IO 20 40 50 60 Q.—That is the steamer you were noon, is it not? A.—Yes. Q.—The "Anna Beck," 1,400? A.—It is the same Q.—The "Grace," 2,550? A.—It is the same here. Q.—The "Sa3'ward," 2,725? A.—It is the same here. Q.—Have you any others on that list? A.—Yes "City of San Diego," for 1,620, and the "Sylvia Handy,' 1,587. Q.—Where was that statement made that is in your hands, and about which you have been examined? A.—It must have been taken at Ottawa. Q.—In what year? A.—In 1887. Q.—Did you see the statistics in the Dominion Fishery Report of 1886 before making that? A.—I cannot mst reinem ber whether I did or not. Q.—From what other source could you have got that information in regard to these vessels. The "City of San Diego" and the "Sylvia Handy" were American vessels, from what other source could you have got these figures? A.—I do not think I could have got them from any other source. Q.—Do you know of any other source from which you could have got these figures? A.—Except I got them from some of the sealers' reports. Q.—When you were preparing these claims at Ottawa, were you assisted by the officers of the Marine and Fisheries Department? A.—I was. Q.—Was the "Mary Ellen" a steamer? A.—No, she was a sailing vessel. Q.—-And you say that in Behring Sea, auxiliary steam ves- 0£ sels such as the "Dolphin" would seldom use steam. A. It was veiy little use at all while in the Sea. Q.—It was used to go on the direct voyage and back? A.— More going in and out of harbors and through passes and such places particularly. Q.—When you said you were the originator of the table before you, have you any desire to explain what you mean by the "originator of the table" which includes the "City of San Diego" and the "Sylvia Handy"? A.—Well, I was with the others in getting up this table to show what the doings of the vessel were in the sea. Q.—I have called your attention to the introductory Ian guage at the top of Exhibit (B), which says these skins were taken in and about Behring Sea," and paragraph 8 contains a similar statement. What explanation have you to make in connection with the discrepancies between the statistics of the Marine and Fisheries department report and the discrepancies in Exhibit (B), and the evidence which you have given? A.—I do not know that I exactly understand you. Q.—For instance, you made the statement that the "Do phin" took 2,601, and in your evidence to-day you say it is something less in Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—What explanation have you for including the skins that were not taken in the sea. A.—I was not in a position to define just what was caught in the Sea at that time, and if I did it for one vessel, I could not have done it for the others. Q.—For how many persons were you acting in Ottawa in 1887? A.—I was acting for all the claimants. Q.—You are the Mr. Warren who is already mentioned in these affidavits in connection with the case of Great Britain? A.—Y'es. Q.—And you made these statements on your information and belief at that time? A.—Yes. Q.—From the best information that you could put your hands upon? A.—Y'es. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—Do you mean to say that you based the schedule known as "Schedule B" entirely upon the facts collected from this 19 IO 2 go fishery report and that you made it part of your affidavit? A—I do not say positively that I got it all from that. I think I got it from many other sources. Q.—It seems to be an exact copy in so far as some of the vessels are concerned? A.—It varies, but most of them are the same. Q.—Which one is different? A.—I called attention to it in my evidence. Q,—In "Exhibit B" it happens that there is a misprint and that the catch of the "Favourite" is wrong. The total, however, adds up right if we correct the misprint? A-—It is printed in the Exhibit as two thousand and something. Q.—But the total in "Schedule B" shows that the "Favourite's" catch should be over three thousand. With that exception it is an exact copy of what Sir Charles Tupper has just read? A.—It may be. Q.—Did you not just compare it with him? A..—With that exception it is the same, I think. Q.—What diel you mean when you stated in your affidavit, 20 "And I verily say from personal knowledge of the facts that the said statement is substantial, true and correct? A.— Yes, as far as I knew. ii.—Do you mean, that the boats -had actually made these catches or that that was taken from the Candian Fisheries Report? A.—It meant as far as I knew. I was not there to know what the catch was, and I could only take it from some report. Q.—You do not pretend to say that that is anything more than a copy of what was found in the Canadian. *> Fisheries Report? A.—It must be considerably that way. Q.—You don l mean to say that you could swear to the catch of each of these vessels from your personal knowledge? A.—I do not pretend to. Q.—As a matter of fact, in 1886 and 1887 the customs house had nothing to do with the catch of the vessels, did it? A.—I do not think it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—When you had two Indian hunters in each canoe what lay were 40 they on? Witness:—We gave the Indian hunters $2 on each skin; that was $1 each. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—I would call the attention of the Commissioners to what is evidently a misprint in the document quoted from. This document purports to be drawn up by those trained in the law, and the phrase clearly was "Substantially true' and correet," as is usual. The word "Substantial" is evidently a misprint for "Substantially." -" We will put in the original. Mr. Dickinson;—We will accept that as the statement. 60 William O'Leary was called as a witness on behalf of Great Britain and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Your name is William O'Leary? A.—Yes. Q.—Y'ou live iu Yictoria? A.—Yes. Q.—And you are a master mariner? A.—Yes. Q.—Y'ou came to Victoria in April, 1886? A.—I came on the 17th (if April, 1886. ii.—You came round on the "Pathfinder?" A.—Yes. Q.—Yrou brought her here? A.—Yes. Q.—From what place? A.—From Halifax, Nova Scotia, 291 Q.—You never had been in British Columbia before? —No, that was my first time in British Columbia. Q.—The "Pathfinder"' was a sealing vessel? A.—She was. Q.—You say you arrived in Victoria in April, 1886, and how long did you remain in Victoria? A.—I left here on the 4th of May. Q.—At that time were there any other British schooners in port to your knowledge? A.^—No, when I came here there was not another British schooner, that is a sealing io schooner, in port. Q.—Did any other sealers come in when you were here? A.—I think the "Active" came in from the west coast when I was here. Q.—You went out in the "Pathfinder" and returned in the fall? s A.—I returned on the 4th of September. Q.—Do you know of your own knowledge whether there were any sealing schooners for sale in the port of Victoria in the fall of 1886? A.—When I returned the "Mary Taylor" was for sale. 20 Q.—Anv other? A.—That is all I remember. Q.—What kind of a schooner was the "Mary Taylor." A.— She was a schooner of about 50 tons probably; Mr. Munsie asked me to go onboard her. Q.—Did you examine her for any purpose? Q.—Y'es, Mr.. Munsie had a notion of buying her and he asked me to go on her and have a look at her. Q.—In what condition did you find her? A.—A pretty poor condition. Q.—In what respect? A.—Her decks were bad and her 3° bulwarks were broken off; her rigging was bad. Q.—Did you examine her out of water? A.—I did not. Q.—Did she appear to be an old or a new vessel? A.—She appeared to be a pretty old vessel, but I did not ask her age. Q.—And in pretty bad repair? A.—Yes. ii.—Did you give any opinion after that examination as to whether she would be a good vessel to buy for sealing purposes or not? A.—Mr. Munsie asked me to examine her, and I gave him my opinion. 4 Q.—What was that opinion? A.—I forget what he told me they wanted for it, and I said I did not think she was worth that amount of money. Mr. Dickinson:—Of course the enquiry is what his opinion was. Mr. Bodwell:—Y'es, I should have asked him what his opinion was. To witness:—Was that your opinion that you stated? A.— 5° Yes. Q.—Now, you went sealing in the year 1886 in the "Pathfinder," did you? A.—Yes. Q.—Had you ever been sealing before? A.—No. I had never sealed for fur seal before. Q.—Had you any particular knowledge of the locality in Behring Sea where fur seals were to be found? A.—No, I did not. 5n Q-—You went fur sealing to Behring Sea with the ship that year? A.—Yes, I did. Q.—Where did you get your crew of hunters? A.- them right here in Victoria. Q.—Have you any knowledge as to what their experience had been in hunting? A.—Well. I think two of them had been hunting on the coast of Caliornia that year, came here, left the vessel here, and went with me. Q.—The others? A.—The others was their first year. ear for all of them then? A.— all of them, did you have? A.—I had five. A.—I had five regular hunting at. do any hunting? A.—Got a few. a few, might have got thirty, our hunters Indians or whites? ro into the sea? A.—I think the to find the seal? A.—Only by A.—I did after a while, hem? A.—I didn't find any amount n July; I found a few before that, try few before that in Behring Sea. ; chart of Behring Sea, now shown found the seal to begin with? A.— there I hunted—you see I have got evidence now from your recollec- :ollection. I struck the seal the ;s to the westward of St. Paul, ongitude, about? A.—About 172 ck i he seal about west of St. Paul about 90 miles, I hunted there, t what time? A.—Well, after the e 22nd or 25th of July. I hunted i work? A.—I went south from gitude, about? A.—Well, I hunted part of July, about 541-2 degrees le seal as to quantity, wheu you the end of July? A.—I found ited them. ny or few? A.—That means a •s me remember the longitude, I fine day, and I was afraid of going provisioned to stay and how long he Sea when A'ou went there?' A. about the first of September. ter of fact, did you stay? A.—I igust. I started for home on the ;et out of the Sea until about the of your leaving the Sea on the 4th the schooner Silvia Handy," and the American cutter was seizing ju in good or bad sealing ground? ground at that time, ler did you have at that time? A. isn't a very fine day; the boats were It wasn't a very fine day for seal- g on board agaifiy 1 er been for two or three days pre- wo or three d©s. before that the 'air sealing weather. speak the "Silvia Handy?" A.— ling after the 4th of xVngust? A. 5° Q.—How many seals did you have on the 4th of August? A.—We had on board 1760 something—I think it was 60. Q.—Were those seals all caught in Behring Sea? A.— No. Q.—How many were caught outside? A.—I can't tell exactly. I think I may have had 300 on going into the Sea; I don't think any more than that. Q.—Are you sure you did not have more than that? A.— I don't think so. What- makes me remember that I had only io that many, I only had one day's good hunting on the coast going up, and I got 60 seals. I didn't stay any time; went on to the Sea. Q.—You were making for the Sea as fast as you could at the time? A.—Yes. Q.—The sealing was not good enough to induce you to stay behind? A.—I didn't think so at the time. Q.—Have you any recollection of the number of seals that you caught in the first four days of August? A.—I think the first and second day of August I had pretty good sealing, 20 but I don't remember the catches. Q.—Have you hunted for your log? A.—I gave that -log that year to Mr. Munsie. I don't know what became of the log, and the books I kept an account of seals in I cannot find them. Q.—You have looked for them for the purpose of giving your evidence here? A.—I have. Q.—But still you have a recollection of the circumstances? A.—Oh, yes; I remember the circumstances. Q.—It was your first year of sealing? A.—It was my first 3° year of sealing, yes. Q.—Did you go out in 1887? A.—Sealing? Q.—Yes. A.—I was sealing in 1887. Q.—On what schooner? A.—The "Pathfinder." Q.—With how many boats and how many hunters? A.— I had six boats and six hunters. Q.—Did you go to Behring Sea? Q.—When did you enter the Sea? that year on the 28th of June, if I think it was about the 2Stb of June. 4° Q.—For how long were you provisioned and what time did you expect to stay there? A.—I expected to stay until September, about the first of September. Q.—As a matter fo fact, how long did you stay in the Sea? A.—I left on the 17th of August. Q.—What was the occasion of your leaving on the 17th of August? A.—Well, I got a little further to the eastward than I thought I was. Q.—Where were vou on the 17th? A.—I was off what they call Bogusloff." Q.—How far were you off Bogusloff Island, and in what direction? A.—I was to the eastward; might have been northeast of it. I was probably 20 or 25 miles to the east of it. Q.—What was the weather? A.—I hadn't been there very long; only a day or two. I think, if I remember rightly, I had been to the westward and drifted down to the eastward. Q.—What had been the weather for two or three days prior to that? A.—We had pretty fair weather; I don't remem- 6o ber exactl3'. We had a westerly wind for a day or two and fog. Q.—What happened on the 17th of August? A.—When the weather cle»ared I was to the east of Bogusloff, and I ' couldn't get back into the westward without standing to the eastward. Had a westerly wind. I had to stand over to the north and east- to get back to the westward. I didn't want to take any chances, because I expected I might run across some of the cutters. A.—I did. A.—I think I went in remember rightly. I 294 Q.—How far is Bogusloff from Umnak Pass? A.—It appears to be Q.—Never mind. When you found yourself in that position, and fearing that you might meet the cutter, what did you do? A.—1 came out through the Unimak Pass and came home. Q.—Without finishing your season? A.—Without finishing my season. Q.—How many seals did you have that were caught in the io Sea? A.—I think I had about 2,200 in the Sea; I can't say to within 40 or 50 seals. I remember the season's catch, but I can't remember what I had in the Sea exactly; I think about 2,200. Q.—Can you give us the whole season's catch? A.—2,817 was the amount of seals I had. Q.—For the whole season? A.—Yes. Q.—When did you start out? A.—When did I leave Victoria? Q.—Yes? A.—I went out from Victoria before Christ- 20 mas that year. Q.—Did vou come back to Victoria? A.—I came in March. Q.—Did you land your seals there? A.—I landed what I had. Q.—And you went out again, when? A.—I came in here the 16th of March, I think, and went out again about the 20th. I can't tell within a day, about the 20th, I think. Q.—Now, you have been sealing continuously since those years, have you? A.—Y'es, every year. 30 Q.—With white hunters? A.—I had Indians on the coast one year; I came home I think the first of June that year; I did not go into the Sea at all. Q.—What is your experience as to the proportion of seals which are lost bv hunters in sealing, I mean, what is the proportion of seals they lose compared with those they get? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What have we to do with that, Mr. Bodwell? Mr. Bodwell:—My friends have opened that question. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—This is your case now, not the defendant's case. Mr. Bodwell:—I think I have the right to assume that when my friends open a line of straight cross-examination— The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Did they uot put that in as eiualifying a general remark made that you relied upon in the report of the case of the American Government. Mr. Bodwell:—The portion of the case that we put in, as I remember it, did not refer at all to tha^gubject; it referred limply to the trail that Hie seals use in going into Behring Sea, and the number that went in there. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majestyi-^—The ground on which it was put in was that it qualified. It may or may not have qualified, but that was the reason which justified its going in at the time. Co Q.—Did you keep a book in 1887 showing the number of teals that you got from day to day? A.— I did, 3'es. Q.—Where is that book? A.—I cannot find it. Q.—You have looked for it for the purpose of giving your evidence here? A.—I did, yes. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson. Q.—Captain, are you still sailing for Munsie? A.—No, 40 5o 295 j. Q.—When did you quit his employment? A.—I quit his emplojroent last in 1889. Q.—What ship were you sailing on in 1887? A.—I was on the "Pathfinder.' Q.—And you were in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—And in 1888? A.—'88 I was on the "Theresa," just pn the coast. Q.—Was that a Munsie boat? A.—No, she wasn't owned by Munsie. io Q-—You did keep an account, I see, of your sealing voyage in 1887? A.—Oh, I kept an account of it, yes. Q.—You left it on that ship, didn't you? A.—I don't know. Q.—You did not bring it off with you? A.—I may have; 2 think I did. Q— Was it in the log? A.—The catches of skins? Q.—Did you keep an account of the seals 3rou took in the log? A.—No, in a book, a small book. Q.—Did you ever show that to anybody? A.—-Anybody 20 that wanted to see it, could see it; I don't know as anybody ever elid. Q.—Did 3'ou keep the same sort of an account in 1886? A. —The same. Q.—You don't kno\w where the other book is? A.—I do not. Q.—Do you remember when the British Commissioners were here to investigate the sealing? A.—At what time was it? Q.—For 1886? A.—In 1886? 30 Q.—In 1892? A.—I don't know as I was here. What time were they here? Q.—Dr. George Lawson was one of the British Commissioners? A.—If you can tell me what time he was here. Q.—Well, in 1892? A.—I wasn't here. I was East, in the beginning of '91; I came here in the spring of '90, around the Horn. Q.—Do you remember of making any statement to the Commissioners about the number of seals taken in 1886 and 1887? A.—-No, I don't remember. 4° Q.—Now, let me ask 3'ou as to the "Pathfinder," you were on her all the season of 1886, weren't you? A.—I was. Q.—Did you not take 950 seals in Behring Sea and 750 on the coast? A.—No, I did not get 750 on the coast. Q.—How many did you get? A.—I don't know, but I did not have that many. Q.—How many did you get in Behring Sea? . A.—Well, I don't know; I know I didn't get over 300 seals on the coast that year. Q.—How many did vou get in Behring Sea? .V.—I had 5° 1,760 odd altogether. Q.—So 3'ou got 1,400 and odd? A.—I must have got about 1,400 in Behring Sea. Q.—Now, returning to these books, what did you do with the book of 1886? A.—That is what I would like to know. Q.—Y'ou were on the "Pathfinder" the next year? A.—I was. Q.—Did you see it that year on her? A.—No. Q.—Neither the 1886 book nor the 1887? A.—No, I don't think I left them on; I think I brought them ashore. Q.—Didn't vou account to Munsie for vour sealing catch? A.—I did. Q.—Show him how 3'ou caught them? A.—I didn't show him how I caught theun; I showed him how many I had. Q.—Didn't 3'ou show him the account you kept? A.—I did. Q.—That is what you kept your account for, to show your owner? A.—I elid. 60 Q— Didn't you leave the book with Munsie? A.—I don't think so. Q.—Why? A.—The book didn't belong to Munsie, it belonged to me. Q.—But you showed him the account? A.—I did, of course. In making up the hunters' accounts he had to have the number of seals they caught. Q.—What time did you leave Behring Sea in 1887? A.— In 1887 the last day I hunted, I think, was the 15th day of August. Q.—What made leave A.—Yes, that was the reason. Was that why vou left Afraid of being seized in A.—Yes. Q.—That was why you left in 1886? A.—I spoke a vessel in 1886 which told me that seizures were made. I didn't know that they were making any seizures in 1887. _J supposed they were. Q.—What made yon suppose that? A.—Because they had been making seizures the year before. Q.—Did not Mr. Munsie tell you before you went away that spring th< re would be no seizures in 1887? A.—1 don't remember. Q.—Did you speak to any one to learn anything about seizures in 1887? A.—I spoke to one schooner in Behring Sea in 1887. Q.—What schooner was that? A.—The "Mary Taylor," I believe. Q.—Did they tell you an3rthing about, seizures or warnings in Behring Sea? A.—No. Q.—The only reason you left in 1887 was because of the seizures of 1886? Is that so? A.—The reason I left was because I supposed they would be seizing schooners the same as the year before. Q.—What did you go there for? A.—I went to get seals. Q.—And without having heard of any seizures in 1887, or any warnings, you came home? A.—I came home. Q.—Having gone there to get seals you left early in August, on the 15th of August, because you were afraid you would be seized? A.—If I had been where I thought I was, further to the westward, I wouldn't have come home so soon. That was the reason. I was a little further to the eastward than I thought I was, when the weather cleared. Q.—Is it not a matter of fact that you came home because the weather waprough? A.—No, no. Q.—And that you could not catch any seals because of northwesters? A.—We generally get good weather there In August. Q.—What kind of weather were you getting when you left? A.—The weather wasn't so very bad, but it wasn't fit sealing weather; hadn't been for a day or two. Q.—How long had it been unfit sealing weather? A.— May have been a day or two. Q.—Did it get any better while you were in the Sea? A. —It didn't take me very long to get out. I was out the next day, because I was close to the pass. Q.—And you want the Commissioners to understand, do you, that you left in August, August 15th, 1887? A.—That was the last day I hunted, the 15th of August. Q.—When did you leave? A.—I left on the 17th. Q.—And you want the Commissioners to understand that you left on the 17th for fear of being seized? A.—Yes. Q.—And the only reason you had for that was because there were seizures in 18S6? A.—Yes, and, as I told you, I was a little further to the eastward of this volcano, and if I had been to the westward of the volcano I wouldn't have come out for two or three weeks. 297 Q.—You were not over to the eastward of the volcano for fear of revenue cutters, were you? A.—No, but I was more in the track of cutters there. Q.—And you had not heard a word of there being a cutter in the Sea in 1887? A.—No, I hadn't heard. Q.—If the sealing was good on the 17th, why didn't you run out of that course by the volcano and get out of the track of the cutters? A.—I had to stand to the eastward to get back to the westward, io ■ Q.—A northwesterly wind? A.—It might have been a little northwesterly. Q.—A little north of west, was it not? A.—I don't know; I can't tell you exactly. Q.—Do you know where your log is for 1887? A.—I didn' keep any log; the mate couleln't write, and I didn't keep any Q.—Kept nothing but the sealing account? A.—Just the sealing account. Q.—And how large a book did you keep that on? A.—A book about the size of this one I have got in my pocket. (In- 20 dicating.) Q.—You came around the Horn in the "Pathfinder," and there was but one ship for sale that year in the port, was there? A.—That is all I can remember that was for sale. Q.—Were you sent to Nova Scotia to buy the "Pathfinel- er" ? A.—No, I was in Nova Scotia when Mr. Munsie came to buy it. Q.—Did you help buy it? A.—No, I had nothing to do with buying it. Q.—Do you know what she cost? A.—I do not. I don't 30 know what Mr. Munsie paid for it. Q.—You brought her around; Munsie didn't come with you? A.—I did. Q.—What did it cost to bring her around? Well, I don't know what the bills were, I didn't see the bills. Q.—After bringing the "Pathfinder" around, did you go up the coast at all? A.—Up this coast. Q.—Yes? A.—Yes. Q.—Take any supplies up there? A.—You mean did I go in for supplies. 4° Q.—No. Did you take any up there and land any? Do you know where Chatelet is? A.—New Chatelet is on the west coast of Vancouver Island here. Q.—Did you ever take any supplies there for Mr. Munsie? A.—No, I never did. Q.—Do you know what vessels Munsie owned and controlled in 1886? A.—Well, I don't know. I heard he owned the "Carolena." Q.—And the "Pathfinder"? A.—And the "Pathfinder." Q.—And so far as the "Pathfinder" was concerned, in 1886 5° you took no supplies and landed them at Chatelet? A.—No, I wasn't on the coast at all. Q.—Did you bring around salt for ballast from Nova Scotia? A.—On the "Pathfinder"? Q.—Yes? A.—No. Q.—What was your ballast? A.—We had rock—stone; I don't think we had any salt in. Q.—What kind of guns did you have on the "Pathfinder"? A.—I think we had the Greener gun; I am not certain; an English gun. °° Q.—How many? A.—We had five guns; we may have had one spare gun; we had six shot guns, I think, on board, ane some riflelf I don't know how many. Q.—What kind of guns did you say? A.—I think we had an English gun, and if I remember right I think they were the Greener gun. Q.—How many did you have? A.—Had six altogether. Q.—And when did you take those on board? A.—We took them on board here in Victoria. 298 Q.—In 1886? A.—In 1886, yes. Q.—And what time did you leave for the Sett in 1886? A.—I left here the 4th day of May. Q.—Why are you so positive about that date? A.—Well, I remember distinctl3- it was the 4th of May I left here. Q.—How do you fix it? A.—Well, I came in here the 17th day of April; I remember that distinctly. Q.—And took supplies on board? A.—After doing some repairs for the vessel, took on supplies, got ready and started. 10 Q-—Bid you take your guns on after arriving here in May? A.—Yes, everything was taken on here. Q.—How many guns did you take on? A.—I have told you already; six shot guns. Q.—Did you take any off and deliver to the "Carolena"? A.—No, I never saw the "Carolena" at all; I have never seen that vessel. Q.—Delivered no supplies to the "Carolena"? A.—No. Q.—Do you know anything about what those shot guns were worth? A.—No, I don't know what they were worth. 20 Q.—You never knew of any delivery of any guns, rifles and phot from the "Pathfinder" to the "Carolena," did you? A. —No. Q.—Were you on board of her from the time she came around the Horn from Nova Scotia as her master? A.— Yes. Q.—All the while as her master? A.—Yes, until she came back here from Behring Sea. Re-direct examination. 3° Q.—You knew from the year 1886 what the track of the revenue cutter was pretty well? A.—I knew about where they had seized those vessels a year before. Q.—And that was, generally? A.—The track between Ounalaska and St. George's Island. Q.—How far to the east of where you were? A.—Well, I could tell probably by overhauling this chart; I wouldn't be to the westward of Ounalaska over 60 miles, I don't think, perhaps, not that. Q.—General^ speaking, how far from the track between 4° Ounalaska and St. George's Island? A.—I wasn't more than 35 or 40 miles to the westward of that track. Q.—And with the wind as blowing you would have had to make a long tack to the eastward to get around Bogusloff? A.—I would. Re-cross-examinaf ion: Q.—I would like to ask you if you know the price of these guns. A.—I really elon't. Mr. Munsie never told me. I know what they are now. The Commissioner on the part qf the United States:—Mr. Bodwell, will you please tell me how manv boats he says he had? Witness:—I had five sealing boats and a small stern boat. Q.—In 1887? A.—In 1887 six regular hunting boats and no stern boat. 5° 60 Emile Ramlase was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. '&&■ Direct examination by Mr. Bique: Q.—Where do you reside now? A.—Victoria. Q.—Were you in Behring Sea in 1886? A.—I was. Q.—On wliat vessel? A.—"Theresa." Ii 20 299 Q.—In what capacity? A.—Boat rower. Q.—Who was the master of the vessel? A.—White. Q.—Where is he to be found now, do you know? A.—I don't know where he is. Q.—He is not in Victoria? A.—He is not in Victoria. Q.—And has not been for several years? A.—Not that I know of. Q.—And who was the mate? A.—I forget his name. I have not seen him since, io Q.—How many boats had you? A.—We had five boats and a stern boat. Q.—A white or an Indian crew? A.—White crew. Q.—When did you commence sealing in Behring Sea in 1886? A.—As near as I can remember, I believe about the 28th of June is about the first day we got any seals to speak of. Q.—And how long did you remain in the Sea sealing? A. —If I remerber right, we left on the 25th of August. Q.—Why did you leave on the 25th of August? A.—I don't know. I suppose that was the end of the trip. Q.—Do you remember how many seals were caught in Behring Sea l>3r your crew in that year? A.—I believe 2,100 about; perhaps a few more or less. I wouldn't be certain; it is over 2,000 any how. Q.—In Behring Sea? A.—In Behring Sea; yes, sir. Q.—You did not keep any book? A.—I did not. Q.—Y'ou did not keep any record of the catch? A.—Not at all. Q.—Y'ou say you remained until the 25th of August? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Had you good sealing until the 25th? A.—What I should call good sealing. Q.—Do you know how many days you were out in August? A.—I do not remember. Q.—Were you Out? A.—Oh, yes; we were out, Q.—Almost every day? A.—No, I shouldn't say every day; hardly possible to be out every day. Q.—Well, how many days in the week on the average? A.—It would be hard for me to state. I know we didn't have any real bad weather for the year; it was what I should call a good year. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Mr. Ramlase, have you been sealing any other years besides 1886? A.—I have been sealing ever since. Q.—What vessel were you out in in 1887? A.—I was fn the San Jose. Q.—How many seals did you get in the San Jose?. A.— We got, I believe, 900, up to the time we were seized. Q.—In the Sea? A.—In the Sea up to the time we were seized. Q.--And in 1888? A.- Q.—What vessel? A. 30 40 SO -In 1888 I was in Behring Sea; —In the "Alice Seymour." 60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:- you want to open 1888 now? Mr. Lansing:—I was simply testing his memory, that is all. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—No with a view of opening the year? Mr. Lansins -Not at all. Q.—In 1888 how many seals did you take in the Sea? A.— I think it was about 700; probably a few over or a few under, I wouldn't be certain. 300 Q.—And in 1889 what vessel were you on? A.—On the "Seymour." Q.—How many that year did you take? A.—I think something over 1,200. Q.—Cannot you fix it a little more accurately? A.—I cannot. I don't keep no books, but I know pretty near; it was about 1,200 in Behring Sea. Q.—How can you fix it so clearly in 1886? A.—Well, I remember; I know it was over 2,000. Q.—You were not paid on any lay? A.—Yes, I was. Q.—As to the whole catch? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was your lay? A.—My lay was a 64th of every skin that came aboard. Q.—Do you recollect the weather in July and August of 1886? A.—Yes, I remember it to a certain extent. Q.—Did you have very fair weather in July? A.—I should call it fine weather, yes. Q.—And fair weather in August? A.—I should call it fair weather in August. Q.—Was it as fair weather in August as it was in July? A.—I hardly think so. Q.—It never is as fair in August as it is in July, is it? A. —I don't know. I have seen very good weather in August since. Q.—Was it as fair weather in August as in July? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You asked him if it ever was as fair in August as it was in July? Q.—Is it ever as fair in August as it is in July in the Sea? ■* A.—Possibly it is. I have seen very good weather in August. Q.—Have you seen as good weather in August as in July, as many good sealing days? A.—Well, I wouldn't be certain. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You mean the average, do yon, Mr. Lansing? Mr. Lansing:—The average. 4° Witness:—I wouldn't be certain of that. I never counted it up, or anything like it. Q.—But you say that in 1886 the weather was not as good in August? A.—I don't believe it was. I think we had better weather in July. Q.—You used to/leave the Sea between the 20th and the 25th of August, did you, in those years? A.—That year we left the 25th, I am almost sure we did. Q.—When did you stop sealing in August? A.—What jo year? Q.—In 1886? A.—Well, as near as 1 can remember a few days before that, probably a couple of days. Q.—Then you left on account of what? A.—The vessel wasn't fitted out for a long cruise; she wasn't very wdl provisioned going home. Q.—Did you have any bad weather? A.—Going home? q_.No. A.—Not what I should call bad weather. Q.—How many days in August did you seal? A.—I could not tell. I didn't keep no account. 6o Q.—Well, you coudn't tell as to July? A.—No, I couldn't tell as to July either. Q.—But the weather wasn't as good in August as it was in July? A.—Well, I don't know. I am not certain of that. Re-dired examination: Q.—You were paid by the skin, I believe? A.—I was paid on a lay. IO Q.—Was it on the quantity of skins taken Mr. Dickinson:—One skin every 64 is a 64th lay, I understand? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you were interested, therefore, in keeping a record of the quantity of seals that had been taken? A.—Of course it was to my interest. Q.—You were asked as to your being in Behring Sea in 1S87, and you said that you were in the San Jose? A.—In the San Jose. Q.—How many boats had you on the San Jose? A.—Four and a small stern boat. Q.—There is a question I should have asked on the direct examination: where did you seal in 1886, in what part of Behring Sea? A.—Well, I couldn't say for sure. Q.—Looking at the map, would you be able to show the place where you sealed? A.—The only thing I can remember about it is that I saw Bogusloff on several occasions. The Commissioner on the part- of the United States:—The question is whether 3'ou can, by looking at the map, point out where you were sealing. Mr. Bodwell:—Can you see on the map about where you were? A.—I could not. I seen Bogusloff on several occa- Q.—Then you were not far from this island? A.—I saw it on several occasions. Q.—At about what distance wer< you from the island? A. 3° —Oh, probably 40 miles—30 miles. I 20 50 Gustave Hansen was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. 40 Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Y'our name is Gustave Hansen? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Y'ou are a master mariner? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you been sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How long? A.—Been sealing since 1880. Q.—Were you in Behring Sea in the year 18S6? A.—Yes, y.—On a sealing voyage? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On what vessel? A.—The schooner "Adele." Q.—As master? A.—Y'es, sir. y.—Where did you sail from? A.—In 1886 I sailed from Victoria. y.—What was the "Adele,"_a British vessel? A.—A. German. Q.—What number of boats and hunters had you? A.— In 1886 I had three boats. y.—What kind of hunters? A.—White men. y.—What time did you go into Behring Sea? A.—I don't remember; I think it was on the 27th or 28th of June. y.—Do you remember what time in the year you began to get seals? A.—Began in July. y.—How long did you stay in the Sea? A.—To the 2nd of August I started back. y.—What was the occasion of that? A.—There were four gQ schooners of us together, and three of them got seized and I was the only one that escaped. y.—You left? A.—I set sail. Q.—How many seals did you have up to that time? A.— I don't remember; I think I had at that time somewhere near 900, anel the whole season 1140. I got some on the coast. y.—You had taken a few on the coast? A.—Yes. Q.—Where did you seal, in what part of the Sea? A.— About eight or ten days I had fine weather and was doin well. I was hunting myself. I didn't take any observations; I see land quite a distance off. Q.—Can you tell us about where you were when you started for home? A.—I was not a great way from the "Carolena" and the other boats. Q.—Were they all together when seized? A.—No, in the afternoon I seen a vessel up to the windward, kind of a peculiar position, and I couldn't make out what she was doing. I Been what I found out afterwards was the "Thornton" and io the "Carolena." She made turns about her as though she was taking up her boats and canoes. During the night 1 set a jib for two or three hours and stood to the westward. Q.—Did you go out in 1887? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what schooner? A.—The same one, the "Adele." Q.—At the time you left for home, when the "Onward," "Thornton" and "Carolena" were seized, were you in good sealing ground? A.—Yes, the best I had been in for some time. I was getting from 50 to 80 seals a day with three boats, shooting with rifles. 20 Q.—How was the weather up to the middle of July that year? A.—We had variable weather to the middle of July. Q.—Now, then, you were out in 1887 you say, with the same boat? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And with what hunters? A.—I had Indians. Q.—How many? A.—I had six canoes and my boat. Q.—Did you go to Behring Sea that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When did you go there? A.—I got there, I think, in the first part of July; might have been the first or second. Q.—What time did you leave? A.—I left in the begin- 3° ning of August. Q.—Why did you leave in the beginning of August that, year? A.—Because there were too many seizures going on. Q.—Tell us exactly? A.—I spoke the "Mary Ta3'lor" and the captain wanted to know if I knew it was true that the schooners were seized. I said I hadn't heard so, but I got kind of suspicious, and I bore to the eastward and made Bristol Bay. I spoke another schooner and was asked if they had been aboard of me. I said no. He asked me how many seals I had; I said I had about 1200; and he told me I had 4° better get out if I could. Q.—Were the Indians frightened or not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Refused to stay? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many seals did you have? A.—I had a little over 1200. Q.—Did vou get any outside of the Sea that year? A.— Yes. Q.—How many? A.—I don't remember. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren. Q.—How many boats did you have in 1886? A.—In '86 we had three boats. Q.—Any stern boat? A.—No, only three boats, three proper boats, hunting boats. Q.—And how many men in a boat hunting? A.—Three men in a boat. Q.—You say you took how many seals in Behring Sea that year? A.—Well, I can't exactly tell; I think I had 164 on the coast, and I got the rest in Behring Sea. I had 1140 for the season. 6o Q-—D^ y°u date that you thought you got 900 in Behring Sea? A.—Y'es, sir, a little over 900; I don't remember because the log was lost. Q.—Did you ever make a statement to the British Commissioners that you caught 605 during the whole of that year? A.—No, sir. Q.—You had the same boat here in 1887 with six canoes? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many Indians in a canoe? A.—Two men in each canoe. liill IO Q.—And one boat besides? A-—Yes. Q.—Did you hunt in that boat? A.—Yes, I hunted in that boat. Q.—Were you out often? A.—Yes, quite. y.—You got how many skins that year? A.—Altogether I had 1312. y.—Did you ever make a statement to the British Commissioners that 3'ou got 630 in Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. y.—And 720 on the coast? A.—No, sir. y.—Is that a proper division of your catch? A.—-No, sir, I never said no such thing. y.—I asked you if that was a proper division of the catch? A.—In 1886? q.—1887? In 1887 got 1312 seals, 720 on the coast, and' 630 in the Sea. Is that a proper division of the catch? A.— No, I got most in Behring Sea, only a few on the West Coast. The Commissioners then rose. 20 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, Between Great Britain and the United States of America Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 9, 1896. At 10:30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. 3° Mr. Bodwell:—I wish to present to the Commissioners an abstract showing the catch of seals'in August, 1886, by the schooner "Mary Ellen." It is as follows: Abstract showing the catch of seals in August, 1886, by schooner "Mary Ellen." Jacobsen 220 De Fries.. M 175 Julian 231 .„ Lorenzo 179 ^ Dillon 153 Stern boat 47 1005 Gaffed from the schooner 1 11006 Less three taken by Jacobsen outside of Sea... 3 50 1003 The following seals were taken on the 1st August: Jacobsen 23 De Fries 40 Julian 35 Lorenzo 28 Dillon 12 Total 138 gQ Total number of seals taken during month... .1003 Deduct number taken August 1 138 Total 865 This is subject to our argument as to what the effect may be. Mr. Peters:—While we are waiting for a witness I shall put in some documents which have to be put in evidence. IO 304 The first is the record of the proceedings in the case of the United States vs. James Ogilvie, master of the "Carolena." This is a certified copy. Document received and marked Exhibit 19 G. B., Claim N'o. 1. Mr. Dickinson:—We reserve our objection to any claims for damages on behalf of James Ogilvie. Do your Honours wish to hear the argument on that point now? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Would 3'ou kindly state the ground? Mr. Dickinson:—The ground of objection is that Ogilvie has departed this life and whatever claim he would have at law would die with him. The second objection is that it already appears that he was convicted of a technical violation of the United States law b3r a court of general jurisdiction. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The 20 Commissioners think that their decision on this question had better be reserved until final argument. Mr. Dickinson:—I think in the case of Ogilvie, he died before conviction. Mr. Peters:—I think they estreated his bail when he was dead. This exhibit 19 of course requires to be printed. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It will be printed of ceiurse. 3° Mr. Peters:—There are two facts which I wish recorded in the notes. The first is that when the information was filed against him he was held on bail to appear, and the second is that he did appear by counsel and that counsel was Mr. Clark. I wish to put in a similar record in the case of the United States vs. James Blake. The remark is also applicable to that, that the party appeared by counsel and that counsel was Mr. Clark. 4° Document received and marked Exhibit No. 20, G. B. Claim No. 1. Mr. Dickinson:—The same objection will be raised as to Blake, your Honours, he having departed this life. Mr. Peters:—I wish to put in as exhibits the following charts. They are in the ordinary copy of the United States reprint, but not separate from the book. This is the only copy I have of them in this form. I may say that these are 50 all authentic documents issued by the -United States. Sir Charles Tupper:—These are the actual documents presented by the United States Government to the British Government. Mr. Peters:—-1 wish to put in to be filed the following: "The Cruises of United States Vessels, July 15th, August 15th. 1891." Document received and marked Exhibit 21, G. B. Claim 60 No- 1- Mr. Peters:—I also wish to put in Chart No. 6, which is the sealing chart. Document reeteived and marked Exhibit 22, G. B. Claim No. 1. Mr. Peters:—I also wish to put in a~chart which is in the American reprint, Vol. 2, between pages 574 and 575. This IO Ju3 is also issued by the United States authorities and purports to be "The Cruise of the British Schooner Ada, from Victoria, in Behring Sea, Season of 1887. Taken from the log." There is appended to this chart the following certificate: "I certify that this map was prepared at the United States Coast and Geodetic Survey Office, and is correct according to the latest authorities. And that the positions of the schooner "Ada" are as plotted from the latitude and longitude as given in her log (seized and now in possession of the United States) at the end of the sea day. "The number of seals taken daily is also copied from said "(Signed) T. C. MENDENHALL, "Superintendent." Document offered in evidence and numbered Exhibit 23, G. B. Claim No. 1. Mr. Peters:—At this point I would ask my learned friend if he has that original log referred to? A.—We have. 20 Mr. Peters:—Will you produce it? Mr. Lansing:—We will on the case. Mr. Dickinson:—If it is competent I think we will let my learned friend have it. Mr. Peters:—Mr. Lansing says he has the original log, and I think we ought to have it. Mr. Dickinson:—My associate had no intention of saying o£ you could not have it. Reserving the question of its competency in the "Carolena" case, you may have it at any time and keep it. The point my associate intended to make was that it was not relevant to the case of the "Carolena." I desire to call attention to chart 1, which is the cruise of the cutters of the United States in 1891. Therefore that is not competent. Chart 6 is the sealing ground in 1892, and we submit that they have no relevancy to the issues in 1886 when the "Carolena" was in the Sea. 40 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—These questions will all be reserved. Mr. Peters:—Have you the log of the 1887 and also for 1886? Mr. Warren:—We have not either one. 6o 'Mary Ellen" for 5o Mr. Peters:—Have you the log of the "Favourite" for 1886 or 1887? Mr. Warren:—We have not. Mr. Peters:—I wish to put in evidence another chart also, which will be found in Volume 2, United States Reprint, between pages 530 and 531. This is in the case of the United States at Paris, and it is headed "Cruise of the United States Schooner "Annie," from San Francisco, in Behring Sea, Season of 1SS7." It is certified as follows: "I certify that this map was prepared at the United States Coast and Geodetic Surve3' Office, and is correct according to the latest authorities. And that the positions of the schooner Annie are plotted from the latitude and longitude as given in the log (seized and now in the possesion of the United States) at the end of the sea day. "The number of seals taken daily is also copied from the said log." "(Signed) T. C. MENDENHALL. "Superintendent." 20 IO 306 Mr. Peters:—There is both the Paris paging on this volume and also the paging of the reprint. Document offered in evidence and numbered Exhibit 24, G. B. Claim No. Mr. Peters:—Have you the log of the Annie? Mr. Lansing:—We believe we have. Mr. Peters:—Have you any objection to produce it later on? Mr. Lansing:—Not at all. Mr. Peters:—I refer to another chart, which will be found in Vol. 2, United States Reprint, between pages 524 and 525. It is headed "Cruise of the United States schooner "Ellen," from San Francisco, in Behring Sea, season of 1887." And it contains the following certificate: "I certify that this map was prepared at the United States 20 Coast and Geodeth; Survey Office, and is correct according to the latest authorities. And that the positions of the schooner "Ellen" are plotted from the latitude and longitude as given in her log (seized anel now in possession of the United States) at the end of the sea day. "The number of seals taken daily is also copied from said log. (Signed) "T. C. MENDENHALL, "Superintendent." Mr. Peters:—Have vou the original log of the "Ellen?" 30 Mr. Lansing:—We have. Mr. Peters:—Will you produce it? Mr. Lansing:— We will. Document offered in evidence and numbered Exhibit 25, G. B. Claim No. 1. 40 Alexander Reppen was called as a witness on behalf of Great Britain and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Beiejue: Q.—Where do you reside, Mr. Reppen? A.—In Victoria, Q.—Were you sealing in 1886? A.—Yes, sir. ^ y.—On what schooner? A.—The schooner "Grace." Q.—In whaf-.capacily? A.—I was mate. Q.—Who was the master of the schooner? A.—Captain Jordan. y.—Do 3'ou know where Captain Jocdan is to be found now? A.—No, I do not at the present time. y.—How long is it since you have seen him? A.—It is three years now since I saw him. y.—He does not reside in this province as fas as j'ou know? 60 A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you seal iu Behring Sea during 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.Did you seal on board that schooner, the "Grace?" A. —Yres, sir. Q.—What was her crew? A.—Her crew were Indians. q.—How many? A.—Her crew consisted of 22 Indians. Q.—How many canoes or boats? A.—Eleven canoes and one boat. IO 20 30 40 So 60 objected to staying any Q.—That was the stern boat? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The stern boat was for your use, I suppose? not for mine; I never went out. Q.—Who used the stern boat? A.—The engineer. y.—Was it generall3' in use by the engineer? A.—No, only occasionally. y.—When diel you enter Behring Sea, do, you remember? A.—As far as I can remember, we entered Behring Sea on the 4th or 5th of July. y.—And when did 3'ou leave the Behring Sea? A.—We left on the 14th or 15th of August. y.—Why did you leave on the 14th or 15th of August? A. —Well, the Indians wanted to go home. y.—Did they object to remainin they were afraid, T think, longer. y.—They were not used to going to Behring Sea, I suppose? A.—No, sir. y.—Did you keep any record of the daily catch in Behring Sea for that 3-ear? A.—Yes, I had a memorandum book which I kept myself, .but the captain keeps the log. y.—Have you that memorandum book? A.—No, I lost that three years ago. Q.—How did you lose it? A.—I was wrecked on the west coast. Q.—Did the captain keep in his log the daily catch, do you remember? A.—T cannot tell. Q.—From memory can you say the number of seals that were taken during the period that you have mentioned? A. —Some of the largest catches I can very well remember. y.—What were they? A—The largest catch we had that I can remember was 225. Q.—On the one day? A.—On the one day. Q.—Do you remember if that was in July or August? A. —It was the beginning of August, I think. y.—Do you remember what was the total catch made during the period 3'ou have mentioned in the Behring Sea? A. —We had 1,700 in the P-ehring Sea. y.—Was that 1700 exactly? A.—I cannot remember the total but there may have been a few more or less. y.—Then you mean to say that it was about 1700 that were taken in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. y.—Do you remember how many days the engineer went out with the stern boat? A.—No, sir. Q.—Well, about how many? A.—I cannot remember that. Q.—Would you be able to say in what position your vessel sailed during the months of July and August of the year 1886? A.—So far as I can remember, the captain showed me the chart and we were between the Pribyloff Islands and Ounalaska. Q.—If 3'ou were shown a chart as to that would you be able to indicate approximately on the chart where 3'ou kept? A.— Oh, 3'es, pretty near it. Q.—Point out on the chart where you were in the month of July? A.—I was about 55 north latitude and 166 and 167 west longitude. Q.—You were there in July? A.—Yes. Q.—In August did you remain on the same ground? A.— At the beginning of August we remained on the same ground and then we went further east. Q.—How much further east did you go ? A.—About 20 or 30 miles—we did not go very far. Q.—Why did you go further east? A.—I do not know— it was the captain's opinion. y.—Did you hear of any seizure then? A.—Yes, we spoke the "Anna Beck" In the beginning of August and they told us that some schooners were seized. 3o8 y.—Do you remember approximately what day it was in August that you spoke the "Anna Beck"? A.—1 cannot hardly tell the dates. Q.—Well, about when? A.—It was about the beginning of August. Q.—What do you mean by the beginning of August? A.— Between the 1st and the 10th, I think. Q.—Was it after speaking to the "Anna Beck" that you went further east? A.—We went further east after we io spoke the "Anna Beck." Q.—Do yon know if the Indians that were on board thes "Grace" had ever been in Behring Sea before? A.—I do not think it, sir. Q.—Do you remember as to whether the weather was fine or bad then? A.—The weather was pretty favorable during the season. Q.—Do you remember how many lowering days you had in Behring Sea that year? A.—I cannot tell exactly from memor3', but I should judge there were about thirty odd 20 days. Q.—Would you remember approximately how many days there were in August? A.—The weather, as far as I can recollect was very favorable during the whole season mostly. We' had lots of fog in the beginning of August. The Indians do not go out in foggy weather. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing. Q.—Mr. Reppen, have you seen any memoranda to refresh your memory as to the catch in 1886? A.—I had a memor- 3° andum book and I lost it. Q.—Have 3'ou seen it lately? A.—No, sir. Q.—Have you talked the matter over with Captain Warren? A. —No, sir, 1 have not talkel to him about it. Q.—Have you talked to anyone else about it? A.—No, sir. Q.—Nor did you talk anything in connection with the cruise of the "Grace?" A.—No, sir, only from my own memor3'. Q.—This is the first notice you had of it? A.—Yes, sir. 4° Q.—When you were subpoenaed and brought on the stand here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Y'ou talked to none of the counsel for Her Majesty about it? A.—Only what I gave to Mr. Podwell. Mr. Peters:—Is it contended that we have not the right to see what the witnesses are going to say before they go on the stanel? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You have a perfect right, and it is to the credit of the diligence 5° of counsel that they should see witnesses before they go on the stand. . Mr. Bdque:—The question is rather too broad. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—As a general rule 1113' observation has always been that thJRoun- sel talk with witneses before examination. Sir Diaries Tapper-—We certainly do to every one of them. 60 Mr. Dickinson:—I consieler it 1113 eluty to the court always to talk with a witness before I put him ou the stand. Cross-e^xainination fj§j ^Ir. Lansing continued: y.—Have you been sealing in other years besides .1.886? A,—Yes, sir, -In 1886 I io 20 309 Q.—Were you sealing in 1885? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were yon sealing in 1887? A.—Yes. Q.—What was your coast catch in 1886? A. was in the "Grace." We had 1,700 skins. Q.—Altogether for the season? A.—No, in the Behring Sea. Q.—What did you have on the coast? A.—We had. I think, about 600. Q.—Now, Mr. Reppen, are you not mistaken about that? Did you not have 1,100 in the Sea and 600 on the coast? Was it not 1,700 altogether? A.—I cannot remember that very well. I know it was 1,700 skins altogether. Q.—Altogether? A.—Altogether. I may have made a mistake, but it seems to me that it was perhaps 1,700 for the season. Q.—You had something over 600 that j'ou took on the coast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Are you sure that 1,700 was all you had? A.—1,700; that is what I can recollect. Q.—Are you sure as to the day when you went to sea? A. —Well, not quite. Q.—Is it not a fact that you entereel the Sea in June? A.— No. I do not think we entered in June; it was the 4th of July, I think, we entered. Q.—Are you a navigator? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were you then? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you sight the Bogosloff Volcano when you were in the Sea? A.—We sighted it in the Behring Sea; yes, sir. Q.—How far awa3' was it? A.—I should judge we were 30 about 30 miles off. Q.—Which way? A.—To the northward in Behring Sea. Q.—Were there more seals in 1886 than there were in 1892 in the Sea? A.—Some days we found lots of seals and some days none. Q.—Right in the same place? A.—At different places; we never stopped in the one place all the time. Q.—Did you see more in 1886 than in 1892? A.—Some days we could see the same quantity of seals. Q.—Answer my question—did you see more seals in 1886 4° than you did in 1892? A.—I should think as a rule we saw just as many. Q.—Is that the best you can answer? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—You will not say that you saw more in 1892 than 3'ou did in 1886? A.—No, I cannot say that. Q.—Did you make the following statement, which is to be found in Volume 8 of the American Reprint, page 650, section 6, of the declaration of August Reppen? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What 5° document is that? Mr. Lansing:—It is an affidavit; his own affidavit. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—In relation to another claim? Mr. Lansing:—It is in relation to the question I have asked him as to the number of seals seen by him in 1886 and 1892. To Witness:—Did you subscribe to that declaration ? A. —Yes. sir. y.—Did you make the following statement in that declaration: "I saw more seals in 1892 than I saw in any previous year, and I am informed by my hunters to the same effect." Did you make that statement? A.—Yes. Q.—Is that statement true? A.—Yes. In fact I saw a good many seals in 1896 the same way. Q.—Is that statement there true? ' A.—Yes, sir, that is true. 60 ■MM 310 m Q.—You saw more in 1892 than you did in 1886? A.— Yes. Q-—Then what do you mean by saying that you could not state whether 3-ou saw more in 1892 than in 1886? A.—It is so many years ago that I do not remember it very right. Q.—How many did you catch in 1896? A.—We got over 700. Q.—And you saw more than you did in 1886? A.—We got a good man3r seals in 1886. 10 Q.—Did you see more then than you did in 1886? A.No, I cannot. sa3' that. Q.—Your recollection as to 1886 is not very good, Mr. Reppen? A.—It is many years ago. Q.—And you don't remember much about it? A.—I can remember a good many things, but a good many things I cannot. Q.—How do you remember the number of "lowering days" that year? A.—I never said just correctly that I could remember them exactly, whether there wopld be some days more or some days less. Q.—How many lowering days did you say you had? A.— Some 30 odd lowering days. Q.—You were in there about 38 days and of these you had about thirty lowering davs? A.—I was in from the 4th of July to the' 15th of August. Q.—That is about 38 days, and were about thirty of these lowering da3"s? A.—There were some days we only lowered for half a day. Q,--Ir it neyf a fact that before you came out it was blow- 3 bag prett3' hard, and that that was the reason the Indians wanted to get away? A.—Y'es, the weather commenced to be a little bad. Q.—Are not the Indians very supe-rstitious? A.—Yes, they are as a general rule. Q.—And if they want to come away do the captains have to come? A.—Yes, to humor them. It is no use to go against them. Q.—Was it not a fact that the season was practically end-- ed on the 15th August of that year? A.—If we had white men we could have stayed longer. Q.—Had your captain ever been in the Sea before? A.— No, sir. Q.—Did that make any difference as to your remaining longer in the sea that 3'ear? A.—I do not think it. Q.—Are there any particular hunting grounds in the Sea? A.—No, sir, I do not think it; wherever you find the seals you stay. Q.—Sometimes you go to the west of the Islands? A.— 40 50 Yes, sir. y.—And sometimes to the north of the Islands? A.—Yes, sir. y.—And sometimes to the east of the Pribyloff Lslands? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And sometimes to the south? A.—Yes, sir. y.—Are the seals thicker in one quarter than in another? —A.—No. Q.—It just happens that you run across a number of seals and stay there for awhile? A.—Yes. 60 Q.—And then you go 60 or 70 miles in another direction? A.—Yes. Q.—And then "lie too" and send out your cances? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And you stay there a day? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And if the seals are thick you stay there two days? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—And sometimes more? A.—Sometimes more. 3' I Q.—And then you pick up your canoes and move off 60 or 100 miles in another direction? A.—Y'es. Q.—Covering the whole sea about the islands? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—North, south, east and west of the seal islands? A.— Y'es. Q.—Am I right in that? A.—Y'es. Q.—While you were in the sea were there many calm days? A.—Not very many, io Q.—Does steam help a vessel in the sea? A.—No, we never use the steam. Q.—Never used it at all? A.—Only to go for water. Q.—How do you remember that catch of 235 seals? A.— I remember it on account of it being an unusually large catch. Q.—Did you ever hear of a day's catch as big as that by any other vessel? A.—Yes, sir, I have been in other vessels the same way. Q.—And you made one big catch? A.—Yes. Q.—And you can remember all the large catches? A.— 20 Yes, sir. Q.—These are the only ones you can remember. A.—Yes. Q.—You cannot remember the poor days. A.—Not except by the number of how many seals we had. Q.—What is the next largest catch vou made in the year 1886? A.—We had 150. Q.—When was that? A.—It was during the time we were in Behring Sea. Q.—What time of the month? A.—I should judge it was in July. We had several good catches. 3° Q—What time in July? A.—The latter end of July. Q.—Was not this catch of 235 in July also? A.—It may- have been in the latter end of July, but I cannot tell you. Q.—Anywhere from the 20th to the 30th of Jute? A.— Yes, an3'where around there, I think. y.—Is it not a fact that the latter part of July was a good deal better than the 1st of August that year? A.—Y'es, we had good catches. Q.—Was not there a good deal of bad weather in the first of August? A.—Not on the first. 4° y.—Take the first ten days in August, and did yon not have a good deal of bad weather? A.—If I remember aright after the tenth we had bad weather. Q—You have heard the testimony of some of these other witnesses as to the weather during the first of August? A. —Yres. y.—Did not that refresh your memory that during the first part of August you had bad weather? A.—Yes, we had bae weather, but it did not last long. Q.—Did vou have worse weather than you diel in July. A. -Yes. Q.—Did your sealing end about the tenth day of August? A.—About that, I think. y.—You went out of the sea on the 15th of August? A. —Yes. Q.—You stated that you were there several days waiting for good weather, did 3-ou not? A.—Yes. Q.—And the good weather did not come? A.—No. Q.—So you went out of the Sea? A.—Yes. g0 Q.—It was the bad weather that was the chief reason why you left the Sea? A.—Yes. Re-direct examination by Mr. Beique: y.—Will you refer to the declaration that was shown to you as to the comparative number of seals that you saw during the year 1892 and previous years, and say if your declaration referred to Behring Sea or if it referred to the sealing in general ? I will read the declaration to you: 50 312 IO 20 40 50 60 DECLARATION OF AUGUST REPPEN. "Dominion of Canada, Province of British Columbia,' City of Victoria. "I, August Reppen, of the City of Victoria, in the Province of British Columbia, master mariner, do solemnly declare as follows: "1. That I have been captain or mate on schooners engaged in the sealing business for the past nine years. "2. I have been engaged on the steam schooner "Grace" and the schooners "Kate," "Mary Taylor," "Viva," "Pathfinder"—now called the "Pioneer"—and this year 1 was on the "Fawn." "3. While I was engaged as mate on the different schooners I was also engaged a portion of the time in seal hunting. "4. During the entire time in which I have been seal hunting I have not lost more than three seals by sinking. "5. I notice no difference in the seals now and nine years ago, with the exception that they are wilder. "6. I saw more seals during the,3'ear 1892 than I ever saw on any preveious year, and I am informed by my hunters to the same effect. "7.When a seal is wounded the chances are ten to one that it is secured by the hunters. "8. If a seal is wounded it is chased until it is secured. I have chased a seal for half an hour after I wounded it before I secured it. "9. I have seen seals travelling in schools, and at such times they are more difficult to secure. "10. The males and females travel together. "1. I have opened seals and know that they eat fish, but they also eat shrimps and insects. "12. I have never been on the Russian side of Behring Sea. "13. 1 have seen seals cohabiting in the water; they do this in the same manner that cats and dogs do on land. "14. I have been hunting with Indians; in calm weather they prefer the spear, but as a rule they now prefer the gun for sealing. "15. Ouite a number of barren females are killed on the coast. "16. Very few old bulls are taken. "17. The only protection necessary for the seals in my opinion is to protect them on the islands. "And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true, and by virtue of "The Act Respecting Extra-Judicial Oaths." "(Signed.) AUGUST REPPEN. y.—That does not refer to Behring Sea in particular does it? A.—No, sir. y.—Did you in 1886 go all around the Prybiloff Islands? A.—I think I remember we once sailed around the islands. Q.—But you don't remember in what year it was? A.No. Q.—Between the 10th and 15th of August do you remember if you sealed at all? A.—I cannot remember that. Q.—In 1886 did you yourself seal? A.—No, I did not. Q.—You remained on the vessel? A.—On the vessel only. Q.—What was the tonnage of the schooner "Grace." A.— I cannot exactly state but she was 70 or 80 tons. Q.—You do not know? A.—I do not know. Q.—Now, what did I understand you to say in cross-examination as to the number of seals that were caught during that year in Behring Sea? What was it according to your recollection, exclusive of the coast catch? A.—I have always been of the opinion that we had 1700 in the Behring Sea. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I will ask the stenographer to strike that answer out. This io 20 30 40 50 60 is a very important question and the witness wants to understand it and answer it carefully. I want you to be sure, witness, and answer that question carefully. Mr. Beique:—I think the answer, as far as I understood it, is a fair reply to the question. The Commisioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The witness used a word in the answer that might not show a personal recollection. Mr. Bieque:—I think the answer is about the best answer that I could get. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We will allow the answer to stand. The answer he gave was not in my judgment a proper response to the question. I want him to answer the question properly for my own satisfaction. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It seems to me, that that to your question as to what his recollection, it is hardly a response for the witness to state it as a matter of opinion. I join with my learned colleague in saying that the witness should speak to the best of his recollection. Mr. Bieqne:—May it please j'our Honours, my object was merely to explain the apparent conflict between the answers given in his direct examination and the answers given in his cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Your question was a proper one but the answer was not. Mr. Bieque:—I have no objection to put any other question to the witness that will elicit the information that your Honour needs. The Commissioner on the part of the United States: This question has been put on the direct examination, and on the cross-examination, and again it is put upon the re-direct examination. I think 1 will try it myself now. (To the witness.) Q.—Witness, reflect carefully, and from your best recollection, state as near as you can how many seals were taken by your vessel in the Behring Sea in 1886, excluding those taken outside of the Behring Sea. The Witness:—I cannot recollect very well the catch of the schooner "Grace" on account of it is so many years ago this happened, and 1 have not got anything to show. I lost the book I had and I have nothing in writing to show what catch we really had. I have only what I took from my memory. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—You are asked what is the best memory you have upon the matter? A.—It was always what I could remember that we had 1700 seals but I never stated whether it was for the Behring Sea and coast catch together. I do not recollect that. The 1,700 seals, that is what we had in the "Graec." and that is all I can recollect. Re-direcf examination by Mr. Bieque continued: Q.—Now witness, in 1886 did the schooner carry the coast catch into Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—Where was it left before going to Behring Sea? A.— He sent it home from the West Coast to Victoria. Q.—Before entering Behring Sea? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Would that fact the better enable you to recollect whether the 1,700 seals that you mentioned comprised, or did not comprise the coast catch? A.—I cannot say. IO 20 30 40 314 Q.—You do not remember when you came back from Behring Sea what number of seals you had on the Grace? A.— No, sir, I cannot remember that. The only thing I can remember was that the schooner had 1,700 as a catch. Q.—And your memory is not fresh enough to state whether it comprised the whole catch or only the Behring Sea catch? A.—No, sir By Mr. Lansing: Q.—Do you mean 1,700 for the whole season? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Has he not said all he could on that matter, Mr. Lansing? Mr. Lansing:—I do not think he has; I do not think that - was brought out. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—He has said it two or three different times. Mr. Dickinson:—It may be stated in connection with the testimony of this witness by consent of my learned friend, that the tonnage of the Grace on which this catch was made was 76 87-100 tons. (Seventy-six and eighty-seven one hundreths tons.) The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—She was an auxiliary steam schooner? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes. Mr. Peters:—At this point I would ask my learned friend formally so that it may go upon the notes; whether he has the log of the "Grace" for the year 1886 and the year 1887, e>r for either of these years, and, if so, will he produce them? Mr. Dickinson:—:We think we have the log for 1887 but we cannot tell without examination, and, of course, having no intimation that the "Grace" was to come in question, we have not the log in court, neither can we say definitely that we have it without an examination of the papers. -You will be able to inform us this afternoon? Mr. Peters: Mr. Diskinson: -After recess we will inform you. Mr. Peters:—And produce it if you have it? A.—We will. 5° James I). Warren, recalled as a witness on the part of Great Britain. Direct examination by Mr. Beique: Mr. Beique:—I would like to recall, Mr. Warren, in connection with the catch of the "Grace" in 1886, as to whether the 1,700 comprised the coast catch or not.- Mr. Warren has already been sworn. 6o q—Were you the owner of the "Grace" in 1886? A.—Yes, supposed to be. Q.—Have you any record of the catch of the "Grace" in 1886, both of'the coast catch and the Behring Sea catch? A. —I have. Q.—Have you got it separated? A.—Yes. Q.—Will you say what it was? A.—She sent bae-k from the coast 821 seals. Q.—When? A.—Came up some lime in Ma3r. i 6o Q—1886? A.—Before she started for the Behring Sea; then when she returned from Behring Sea she brought in 1,- 765 seals. Q.—What part of those were caught on the way on the coast from the Behring Sea? A.—I do not know, but that is the seals she returned from her trip after she started, for the Behring Sea. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson. io Q.—Where did she make the transfer? A.—Of the seals? Q.—Yes? A.—Down on the coast. Q.—Whereabouts; in port anywhere or in harbor? A.— Well, I don't know exactly, I think it was in—made on the coast. Q.—How far from Behring Sea? A.—Well, some 1,400 or 1,500 miles I suppose. Q.—Will you please state where the transfer was made? A.—I don't know exactly, that is what she returned, what came to Victoria from her. 2 Q.—About how far was the transfer made from Behring Sea? A.—I suppose about 1,500 miles, probably. Q.—And the passage to Behring Sea was through the sea ing ground where the coast catch was sometimes made? A. I expect she sealed some of the way up; I got 709 myself on the way up. Q.—That year? A.—That year. y.—Are there fair weather grounds between that place and the Behring Sea through the course of that 140 or 150 miles? A.—The fair weather grounds are between the places. 30 y.—She could seal on the way up could she? A.—I suppose she sealed some on the way up. I went through the fair weather grounds that year myself, and could not get in, too late. Q.—What time did you go up ? A.—We both started about the same time; about the end of May we left the coast. Q.—About how many ships did you have that year in your fleet? A.—Six, I think all together. Q.—And did they sometimes exchange skins, one of your ships take skins off the other? A.—Not unless only to bring 40 them to Victoria. Q.—If they were bringing the catch up from the coast—A. —One might bring up the catch of the others. Q.—But from Behring Sea, if one was leaving and another remaining? A.—No. Q.—They never exchanged skins? A.—There was never an3' of mine left that' way. Q.—Were you here when the seals—when the skins came in? A.—I was here when the spring catch came in. Q.—Were you here when the Behring Sea catch came in? 50 A.—No. Q.—Where did you make your memorandum, which you have just read? A.—I got it from the vessel's credit of the seals returned. y.—Who kept that? A.—A party by the name of Munroe. y.—Whereabouts ? A.—Here in Victoria. Q.—What did you just read from? A.—From the entry of her credit. y.—From the original entry? A.—From the original en try memorandum. y.—It is not an original entry you have just read? A.— We don't keep it in that book, that is a memorandum of the original entry. Q.—When elid you make that? A.—I made it a day or two ago. y.—Where is the original book? A.—The original book is in an office here in town, will be produced in court here, I ex pect. IO 316 Q.—And Mr. Munroe made it, did he? A.—Mr. Munroe made it. Q.—Did you make a report to the British Commissioners of the catch of the "Grace," the British Commissioners who were sent here, and whose report went to the Paris Tribunal? A. —I do not remember of making any; I might possibl3r; I do not remember. Q.-—Did you make a statement to the British Commissioners that the Behring Sea catch was 110. A.—No. Q.—And the coast catch was 600? A.—No. Q.—Made no such report? A.—No, I know I did not. Charles Alfred Goffin was called as a witness by Great Britain and duly sworn. 20 Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell. Mr. Bodwell:—We are calling this witness a little out of order so that he may go back to his work in the Bank of British Columbia. Nil 30 40 50 60 Q.—What is your first name Mr. Goffin? A.—Charles Alfred Goffin. Q.—Y'ou are accountant of the Bank of British Columbia at the present time? A.—Yes. Q.—And in 1886 were you emploved in that same bank? A.—No, in 1887. Q.—What position did you hold in the bank in 1887? A. —Ledger keeper. Q.—Have you been emploved there continuously since? A. —Y'es. Q.—You were ledger keeper in 1887? A.—Y'es. Q.—A3 ledger keeper have you any duties which would enable 3'ou to acquire a knowledge of the bank rate of interest at that time? A.—Y'es. Q.—What were those duties? A.—I had charge of the customs interest on their overdrafts, and calculated interest on discount which would be placed to their credit. Q.—As accountant for the bank have you any duties to perform which would enable you to acquire a knowledge of the bank rate of interest? A.—I have to take all the books and see that the interest calculations are correct. Q.—Can you tell us what the current bank rate of interest was in the year 1887? A.—From 8 to 10 per cent. Qi—How long did that rate of interest continue as a current rate of interest? A.—Until probably the beginning of 1891; of course it has a great deal to do with the nature of the paper offered. Q.—I am speaking now of paper put through in the ordinary course of business in the bank, and the interest which was charged on overdrafts? A.—From 1887 until the beginning of 1891 it would be from 8 per cent.; after that from 7 to 9—7 and 8. Q.—Down to the present time? A.—Yes, By Mr. Dickinson: Q.—What is the legal rate in British Columbia when no interest is named? A.—Six per cent. By Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Do you know when that came into force in British Columbia Mr. Goffin? A.—I fancy the Bank Act of 1891. 3'7 By Mr. Dickinson: Q.—What was it before 1891? A.—I don't think there was any legislation. Q.—What was the rate charged when no interest was named in the contract in 1887 when you first commenced business? A.—I couldn't say. Q.—You charged the 9 and 10 per cent., whatever you stated, whenever there was an agreement to pay it? A.— io Ye«. By Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Do you know of interest as high as 12 per cent, being charged in British Columbia in those da3'S? A.—O, yes. Q.—Not an unusual thing? A.—No. Not outside of banks. 20 William Douglas Byers called on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Peters. Q.—Y'ou live in Yictoria? A.—Yes, sir. y.—How long have you been in Victoria? A.—Been in Vic- 3° tori a 10 years. y.—Where did you originally come from? A.—Halifax. y.—In Halifax, Nova Scotia? A.—Yes sir. Q.—When did you come around from Halifax, Nova Scotia? A.—In 1886. Q.—What vessel did you come in? A.—In the "Pathfinder." Q.—You came around the Horn in her? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Since that time what have you been occupied with? A.—Sealing. 4 Q.—Did you have any property or cash, money or capital when you started in 1886? A.—No. Q.—Have you been employed in anything but sealing since 1886? A.—No. Q.—And you reside in Victoria, I believe? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you own your own property? A.—Y'es, sir. y.—Own any shipping property? A.—Yes, I own an interest in the "Carlotta Cox." y.—And you own property besides? A.—Yes, sir. 5 Q.—What has your experience been in sealing? Did you seal in 1886? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—On what ship? A.—In the "Pathfinder." Q.—Did you seal in 1887? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what ship? A.—The same schooner. Q.—In what capacity were you employed in her? was boat puller on her. Q.—Did you seal in 1888? A.—Yes, sir. gQ y.—In what capacity? A.—Hunter on the "Penelope, y.—In 1889? A.—Yes, sir. y.—In what capacity? A.—Hunter on the Pathfinder, y.—In 1890? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what capacity? A.—Hunter on the "Triumph." y.—Did you seal in 1891? A.—Yes, sir. y.—In what capacity? A,—Master of the "Carlotta Cox." 3«» 10 20 Q.—Since that time have you sealed every year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what capacity? A.—As master. Q.—Of what ship? A.—The Carlotta Cox for five years and one year as master of the "E. B. Marvin." Q.—That is your experience as a sealer? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Began as boat puller and now a master and part owner? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now I want to get one or two things from you. In 1886 you were on the "Pathfinder?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you go into Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—You went into Behring Sea at what time that year? A.—4th. of June. Q.—Were the seals there when you first went in? A.—No, sir. Q.—When did yon first start sealing? A.—I caught a few seals along about the first of July, but we did not strike any quantity of them until the 12th. of July. Q.—How long did you stay in Behring Sea? A.—Until the 4th. of August. Q.—Do you remember he>w many seals you got during that time? A.—I cannot say exactly, but it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,400. Q.—You are only speaking from memory? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You left Behring Sea on the th of August? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Just tell me the reason of your leaving? A.—On that 30 day some of our boats spoke the schooner "Sylvia Handy" of San Francisco and they told our boats that the cutters had seized vessels in Behring Sea, and we did not care to risk our catch no longer, so we left and came home. Q.—Now, were you there the first, second, and third of August? A.—Yes. Q.—Can you, from memorandum, tell me whether or not during those days you caught any seals and if so, how many? A.—Either on the first, or second, I would not be sure which, but I presume it was on the second of August we got one hundred and fifty seals with five boats. And on the third day of August, which was a foggy day, the catch was very small; we were quite close to the Aleutian Islands, say seven or eight miles from the Aleutian Islands on the 3rd. Q.—On the 4th? A.—On the 4th it was rather a strong breeze for boats to hunt, although we hunted a half day. Q.—What did you catch? A.—We got about 40 seals on the 4th. Q.—These facts yem remember? A.—I remember quite well. Q.—Now in 18S7 did you go into Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what ship? A.—On the "Pathfinder." Q.—How long were you in that year? A.—We were in that year from the 28th of June until the 17th of August. Q.—Can'you fell me the number of boats you had in 1887? A.—Yes, sir, we had six regular hunting boats. Q.—That was more than the year before? A.—Yes, we only had five regular hunting boats in 1886. Q.—I am not going into particulars of this ship because we already have had from Captain O'Leary these (addressing witness). Now T want you to go back, leaving those two years that vou were sealing, did you. know a seal hunter named 40 5o 60 Edward Shields A.—Yes. Q.—Where is Edward Shields? A. spring. -He was drowned last IO 20 30 40 50 60 Q.—Will you tell me how long I had known him since 1887. Q.—What reputation did he bear as a hunter? class. Q.—Had you ever been hunting with him? A.—I was the same vessel with him in 1887. Q.—That was the "Pathfinder"? A.—Yes, sir; he. was hunter on her that year. Q.—So you speak of his qualities as a hunter from actual knowledge? A.—Certainly I do. Q.—Were you with him more than one year? A.—No. Q.—Did you know Joseph Dupont? A.—Yes, sir. y.—He was also a hunter? A.—Yes, sir. y.—Were you ever shipmate with him? A.—I was.. y.—In what year? A.—In 1887, on the "Pathfinder." y.—What duties did he perform? A.—He was a hunter at that time. y.—Will you tell me what sort of a hunter he was? A.— First class at that time. y.—John Cotsford, do you know? A.—Yes, sir. y.—Had you ever been shipmate with him? A Q.—Did you know him by reputation? A.—I did. Q.—What was his reputation as a hunter? A.—I don't know what his reputation was in 1887, but since then he is reputed to be a first class hunter. Q.—In 1887 you simply say you do not know? A.—No, I do not know. Q.—I believe you did not know the other man McCanitry? A.—No, sir, I did not. y.—Can you tell the class of gun that is used in these sealing vessels? A.—Do you mean at the present time? Q.—No, in 1886 and 1887? A.—We had an English gun in 1886 and 1887, I presume the Bonehi Q.—An English breech-loader? A.—An English breechloader. y.—Do you know anything about their value? A.—I don't know what their value was; the3' were a high-priced gun. y.—With regard to catching seals—:boats compared with' canoes—have you ever had experience with white men hunting in canoes? A.—No, sir, I have not. Q.—So far as covering ground is concerned, how would a canoe, manned with two white men, compared with a boat, would it cover as much ground, or less ground,.or more? A. —I think about equal. Probably the canoe will have a little the best of it. Q.—That is so far as covering ground is concerned? So far as covering ground is concerned. y.—Y'ou have seen canoes manned by Indians, of course? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And so far as they are concerned, will that answer apply? A.—I think so; I think that an Indian will cover more ground in a day than a white man. y.—That is if a white man is in a boat and the Indian in a canoe? A.—Yes, sir. y.—Is there any difference between the canoe and the boat so far as their being able to stand the sea is concerned? A. —I think that tlnry hunt in just as rough weather in canoes as we do in boats, although I have never had experience in running canoes myself, but I have seen canoes out in just as rough weather as I would care to put boats out in. y.—Now with regard to the weather that you actually fish seals iu; what kind of weather is the best weather for fishing seals? A.—Calm da3rs. y.—But do you confine your fishing to calm days? A.— No, sir. ' y.—What weather do you fish in? A,—Well, we fish some very rough weather. 320 Q.—What actually stops you? A.—What actually stops us is wind. In these days nothing but wind stops us in the sea. Q.—To what extent would there be wind before you would stop sealing? A.—I presume about 20 miles an hour. Q.—Y'ou would seal up to that you mean? A.—Yes, we have often had to reef our sails when our boats were out before they got aboard. Q.—You say of course a calm weather is the best to fish in? A.—Yes, sir. io Q.—Has windy weather any advantage? A.—No, sir, it is a disadvantage. Q.—Now has fog any effect on you? A.—Fog has an effect when there is wind; in calm weather fog has no effect only except it is very foggy and then we cannot see a seal as far as we could when it was clear. y.—But do you put the boats out in calm, foggy weather? A.—Decidedly yes. y.—So far as lowering the boat is concerned the fog does not stop you? A.—No, fog and calm weather don't stop us. 20 Q.—The fog and wind does? A.—Yes. Q.—Now did you use guns and horns for the purpose of letting the boats know where you are in a fog? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now the process of fishing. What distance do these boats and canoes go from the ship? A.—They go ten or twelve miles frequently. Q.—Of course you have had experience as a hunter yourself? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now there has been talk as to whether such and such hunters are good or bad. Do some men take longer to be- 30 come good hunters than others? A.—They do. Q.—Do some men fail altogether? A.—They never make what is called a first class hunter. I have known some men that never made a first class hunter. Q.—Will you tell us when a seal is floating in the water how much you see? A.—About one-third of him is out of water. Q.—At what distance as a rule did you fire at that time? A.—Oh, about fifteen yards as a rule. Q.—Do you now refer to when they are sleeping? A.— 40 When they are sleeping, yes. Q.—When they are travelling do you fire at longer distances? A.—Yes, travelling fire at them all the way up to 75 yards. Q.—Yes, but the bulk of the seals, are they killed asleep? A.—Sleeping, yes, sir. Q—That is the way the bulk of the seals are killed? A. Yes, sir. Q.—You say you generally get within fifteen 3rards? A.— Fifteen yards, 3'es, sir. 50 Q.—Do they'lie still? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The Indians of course spear, them? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—They throw their spear out about what distance? A. —About eight yards. Q.—Their spear is fastened to a line, is it not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now when you talk of using the cheap gun or the dear gun for the shooting of seals, for the actual business of shooting—is there any practical difference between a cheap gun and a dear gun? A.—In a great many cases there is not. 60 The only difference we find that a high price gun is best for working it lasts longer; the machinery is better in every way. Q.—The actual shooting, can any person see a difference as a rule? A.—I do not think so in my experience. I have seen a low price gun shoot as well as a high price gun. y.—In going after seal in a canoe, is it done with a paddle or with oars? A.—With a paddle. y.—Is not the same thing done with a boat? A.—No, sir, the boat is pushed with oars. Q.—The short oars in the stern? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The approach to the seal, I believe, is that generally done at a fixed speed or slowly? A.—Do you mean the last approach? Q.—The last approach? A.—The last approach is very slow. y.—After within what distance?' A.—Fifty yards. y.—Now when you get within that close that you have described to a seal, is there any great amount of skill required io in actually shooting a seal? . A.—-No, not a great doal. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson. y.—1886 was your first time out, was it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.-—You were a boat puller? A.—Yes, sir. y.—And not a hunter? A.—No. y.—Did you keep any memorandum of the catch? A.—I did not. y.—And did you keep any memorandum of the catch in 20 1887? A.—No, sir. 30 40 5o Q.—I think you got 190 seals on the 2nd of August on ftie "Pathfinder" in 1886? A.—Yes, the first or second I ain't certain about that date. y.—Y'ou were sealing, I think you said, in 1887, the year following? A.—Yes, sir. y.—And you became a hunter? A.—Not in 1887. Q.—Y'ou were still a boat puller? A.—Yes, sir. y.—And in 1888? A.—I was hunter on the "Pathfinde y.—And in 1889? A.—In 188S I was hunter on the "Penelope, and in 1889 on the "Pathfinde y.—1890? A.—On the "Triumph." y.—1891? A.—Master of the Carlotta Cox. Q—1892? A.—Master of the "Carlotta Cox. y—Engaged in sealing? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And you remember, do you, that on the 2nd of August, 1886, you being the boat puller you got 195 seals? A.—1st or 2nd of Augus y.—That en the 5th you got 40? A.—Y'es, sir. y.—Now, will 3'ou be kind enough to tell me how much you got on the 1st or 2nd of August, 1887? A.—No. y.—Will you be good enough to tell us how many you got on the 4th of August, 1887? A.—No, sir. Q.—Will you kindly tell us how much you got in 1888 on the 2nd of August? A.—1888, 2nd of August, we were fishing at the Commander Islands then. , Q.—Sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the other years that you have told of, you were sealing in Behring Sea in August? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many did you get on the 4th of August, 1888? A.—I do not remember. y.—How.many did you get on the first ten days in August in 1888? A.—I do not remember. y.—How many did you get the first ten days of August in 1887? A.—I do not remember. y.—How many did 3'ou get on the 2nd of August in 1889? A.—I do not remember. Q.—The first ten days of August—the whole month of August? A.—I do not remember. y.—How many on the 4th of August in an3' of those 3'ears? 60 -A.—I do not remember. y.—1890? A.—No. Q.—1891? A.—No. y.—1892? A.—No. Q.—You became a master in 1891? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—A master of a sealing ship? A.—Yes, sir. y.—And kept the record? A.—Yes, sir. y.—And you cannot remember how much you got on anv day? A.—Oh, ves, I can remember. 21 ' Q.—When 3'ou were master? A.—Yes. Q.—How many did 3'ou get on the 4th of August, 1S91? A. —1 do not remember how man3' I got on the 4th of August. Q.—How many on the first ten da3rs of August that you were master? A.—I elid not fish for ten days. I was ordered out of Behring Sea on the 1st of August. 1 J.— Were yon fishing ten daj'S in August, 1891, when you were captain? A.—No. Q.—How many dn3's? A.—8 da3*s. 10 Q.—How many did you get altogether in August, 1891, when you were master? A.—I do not remember. Q.—And all the other years except 1886 you were a hunter, and !l£fe7? A.—YTes, sir. Q.—Actuall3' engaged in shooting seals? A.—Yes. Q.—Now can you tell us when you were out in 1887, how many seals you got in July, the first twelve days? A.—No, not 1887. Q.—In 1887 you were still on the "Pathfinder"? A.—Yes, sir. 20 Q-—And you were still a boat puller? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—When did you commence to take seals in 1887? We commenced on the 29th of June. Q.—Did you get any seals in June? A.—Yes, we got 56 on the 29th. I don't remember whether we lowered on the 30th or not. Q.—Can you remember what 3'ou got in July, 1887? A.— No. Q.—When you commenced to get the largest catch in July? A.—No. ,0 Q.—Now you knew Ed. Shields to be 'an experienced hunter, didn't you? A.—No, sir. ii.—Reputed as such? A.—Yes. Q.—And how long had he been sealing? A.—He had been sealing toe year previous to 1S87. Q.—What was he on? A.—The "Carolena" in 1.886. Q.—And he had experience in 1886 only, had he? A.—Yes. Q.—You knew him to be reputed as an experienced hunter? A.—I presume he had been out on the coast, but I don't know as he had been out as a hunter before. Q.__]srot before 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—And when did his reputation commence as an experienced hunter? A.—He had been a hunter all his life. Q.— A seal hunter? A.—No. Q.—But when did his reputation commence as a seal hunter. A.—I presume it was in 1886. Q.—Did you pull for Shields in 1886. A.—No, sir. Q.—In 1887? A.--No, sir. Q.—Did not see him hunt? A.—Yes, I saw him in 1887,1 was aboard the same schooner. Q.—You did not mill for him. A.—No. Q.—You were not in the boat with him. A.—No. Q.—Did you see him kill a seal? A.—Yes. Q.—How many times did you see him kill a seal. A.— Oh. a great many times. Q.—Now about Cotsford, vou did not know his reputation in 1887? A.—No. Q.—Do you know his reputation since. A.—Yes. Q.—Good? A.—Yes. Q.—Fine sealer? A.—Yes. 60 Q.—When did you know of Cotsford sealing? A.—Oh, some four or five years ago. Q.—Since that time at all? A.—No I never had him with me since, nor I never have been shipmate with him. Q.—Only know him by reputation? A.—That is all. Q.—Is he here? A.—I believe not. Q.—Do you know where he is. A,—No. 40 5o 323 Q.—You were in the employ of Mr. Munsi 1887? A.—Y'es. Q.—Did you see any memorandum of a catch for those particular days in August ? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you talk with Mr. Munsie about it. A.—No. Q.—You never have seen a memorandum of a catch for 1886? A.—No. Q.—On the "Pathfinder. A.—No. Q.—Did you count the seals? A.—No. 10 Q.—When you were a boat puller? A.—Only my own. Q.—In 1886 and 1887. only your own? A.—Yes, 1886. Q.—Did they use guns and horns in 1886? A.—Yres. Q.—To call the boats? A.—Yes. Q.—Now, witness, canoes you think are as good as boats? A.—In what way? y.—In the sealing? A.—I did not say that; I said I thought they would cover as much ground. Q.—They are not considered as good for sealing, are they, as boats? A.—Yes, I think so. 20 Q.—For all purposes? A.—Yes. Q.—Y'ou can get canoes—some are cheaper than boats? A. —I don't know about that, I don't know what the price of a canoe is. Q —What is the price of a boat? A.—flOO, about. Q.—Now generally the large sealers use the boats do they not? A.—Only those who take white men use boats. Q.—Are not white men considered better than Indians? A. —No, sir. Q.—Not better hunters? A.—No. 03 Q.—They are not more desirable? A.—No, I presume they are not as desirable as Indians at the present time. Q.—I am speaking of 1886 and 1S87. A.—Well, I do not know at that time they were about equal; I think the Indian was just as desirable as the white man. Q.—And they accomplished as good results in the canoe, I suppose. A.—Yes, according to the amount they carried. Q—And what had the "Pathfinder" in 1886? A.—She had white men. Q.—And boats? A.—Y'es, boats. 4° Q.—Do you know any reason why they didn't have canoes and Indians. A.—No none whatever. y—What did she have in 1887. A.—She had boats. y.—And white men. A.—Yes. y.—And in 1888 you were on the ? A.—"Penelope." y.—What did she have? A.—She had boats. Q—And Indians? A.—No. y.—White men ? A.—Yes. y.—Next year, 1888, the same? A.—Y'es. 50 y.—I suppose the object of going up to Behring Sea is to get as many seals as possible? A.—Yes, that is the object. y.—And in 1888, when you first became master, did you have white men or Indians. A.—White men. Q.—And boats. A.—Y'es. Q.—Can white men use a canoe as well as an Indian? A.— I think so. Q.—They can get over as much ground in a canoe as an Indian can can they? A.—Yes. 60 Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—You wi _ were asked by Mr. Dickinson as to the catch you had made in certain other years. As a matter of fact is there any reason why you can tell us what you did in the first four days of August, 1886, how is it you come to remember that? A.—Well, 195 is a phenomenal catch for five boats, that is the reason I remember it so distinctly "--■*L-"IJ^ I 324 y.—Do 3'ou ever remember such a large catch being made with five boats. A.—Yes. I made another such a catch in 1891, 190 with five boats. Q.—Probably you can tell us the date of that, can't you? A.—Yes, sir, I can tell you date of that. Q.—What date was it? A.—The 29th of July. Q.—And that is what fixes the date in your memory. A.— Ytes, sir. Q.—'You were askted something about the difference be- 10 (ween white men and Indians. I simply want to ask you this question: in 1886 and 1887 were the Indians in the habit of using guns at all. A.—No. Q.—So that if you had an Indian crew at that time you would have to use spears. A.—Yes, sir. Q.—At that time which were considered best, spears or guns. A.—Guns. y.—You stated with regard to Shields that you had only known him for the 3'ear 1887 and that his seal hunting so far as you knew had only been in 1886? I understood you to 20 say something about his being a hunter all his life. A.—Not a seal hunter—he was hunting around the islands, deer hunting, and so on, ever since he was a boy. Re-cross examination by Mr. Dickinson: ' y.—The catch of 40 on the day that you named in August, was not phenomenal was it. A.—No, the reason I remember that so distinctly was because we were out half a day and we had to leave and go home. Charles Augustus Lundberg was called on the part of Gre;:t Pritain and duly sworn. 40 Sir C. H. Tupper:—In one of the reports read to the Commission 3'esterday from the seizing officers, the catch of the "Ada" was said to be 1876 skins; and I wish to examine Mr. Lundberg shortly with reference to that catch. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: y.—What was your position on the schooner "Ada?" A. —I was mate. y.—In what year? A.—1887. 50 Q-—Had you any other duties beside mate. A.—Well I was mate and head hunter. Q.—When did you first begin sealing? A.—I began sealing in 1880. Q.—-And you followed that line of business from that up? A.—No, not right through, I stayed ashore. y.—When were you sealing again. A.—Well, I sealed in 1882-81 and 1882 in the fall. y.—You went as chief hunter on the "Ada" from what port? A.—From Y'okohama. I did not go as mate from 60 Y'okohama; as mate from Victoria, and e-hief hunter. y.—In this season of 1887? A.—1887. y.—Did you go direct to Behring Sea in that season? A. —No; we went down on the coast for a month. y.—What did yem catch em the coast? A—349 skins. y.—What did 3-011 do with them? A.—Seuit them on board of the "Penelope?' to come up here. y.—You shipped those caught on the coast on the "Penelope"? A.—Yes, q.—what did the "Ada" de» then; where did she go? A.— We went out to try and get some more, but we did not get any, we only got seven skins and came back to Victoria again. Q.—Then what did you do. A.—We fitted out for Behring Sea. y.—And went? A.—Y'es. Q.—When did you sail direct for Behring Sea? A.—The 17th of June. y.—How many skins did you get on the way before you io got into Behring Sea? A.—We only got five skins. y.—Do you recollect the catch—total catch on that last trip? A.—Yes, sir. y.—What was it? A.—1,876. y.—And the five out of that were caught outside of the Sea? A.—Yes, they were caught on the way up. y.—Where were the 1,871 caught? A.—In Behring Sea. Qi»—What happened to you during that season—to the ship after your catch? A.—We were seized. Q.—What date; do vou remember ihe' day? A.—Y'es, sir, 20 the 25th of August. Q.—How was the sealing then? A—It was good; caught 38 before breakfas Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—Mr. Lundberg you had seven canoes and two sealing boats? A.-^-We had .seven canoes and the stern boat ana one boat—one Doat and stern boat. Q.—That made seven canoes and two boats? A.—Yes. y.—Did you have white hunters or Indians? A.—Indians. y.—The Indians sealed in the boats as well as th e canoes: 60 3° A.—The interpreter hunted in one boat and the Indians hunted in canoes. y.—Were the boats out considerable of the time. A.— The stern boat was out very seldom. y.—The other boat was out when the canoes were out? A.—Yes. .0 y.—And who was in that? A.—The interpreter we had. y.—What time did you get into the Sea? A.—We went into the Sea—-we went through the pass on the 15th of JUI3'. y.—-And you hunted continuously during the days you could lower 3'our boats until A.ugust 25th? A.—Y'es, sir y.—YVere 3'ou not ready to leave the Sea? A.—No, sir. y.—The same day you were seized, the "AHie I. Alger" was seized? A.—Y'es, sir. y.—Isu't it a fact that you and the "Allie I. Alger" had made arrangements to leave the Sea the day before you were 50 seized? A,—No, sir. y.—Y'ou have got a claim then before this Commission have you not? A.—I have. y.—And it depends somewhat on whether the season had elosed does it not, at the time you were seized? A.—Oh, I don't know. y.—Do not know that? A.—No. Q.—Is it a fact that you were towed into Ounalaska by the Cutter at the same time as the "Allie I. Alger?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And at the time your were seized were you along side of the "Allie I. Alger?" A.—We were not. y.—How far were you from her? -V —I don't know. Q.—Was she seized first? A.—She was in tow when he came along to us. Q.—How many Indians were there hunting from each one of these canoes, armed with guns or spears? A.—Both guns and spears. • inr m ~* -- --- =^--- '\ •jm^jfrxz 326 Q.—What guns? A.—Shot guns, doubled-barreled, not remember the make of them. We got them up from Francisco any way, a box of guns. Q.—What was the' registered tonnage of the "Ada," remember? A.—She was 65 tons and some odd. Q.—That was what she was registered at Yokohama. —She registered at Shanghai. Q.—What was the British measurement. A.—65 that was marked on her. Sir C. H. Tupper:—That is British measurement. Q.—Were you in the Sea in 1886? A.—No. ii.—Was this your first trip in 1887? A.—No, sir, I wi the Sea in 1881. Q.—Hunting seals? A.—Yes. Q.—What else were you hunting besides seals? A.— otters. Q.—Principally for sea otters? A.—Principally for otters. 20 Q.—Didn't take many seals? A.—No, we only got hundred and odd, coming across the sea. I do San you A. IO -Sea foui 30 Robert E. McKeil was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell. 40 Q.—Where do you live Mr. McKeil? A.—Yie-toria. Q.—What is your occupation? A.—Master of a sealing schooner. Q.—Were you engaged in sealing in 1887? A.—I was. Q.—Had vou been engaged in sealing before that time? A. —I had. Q.—Where were you engaged in sealing in 1887? A.—On the coast and in Behring Sea. Q.—In what capacity did you go? A.—Master. Q.—Of what vessel?' A.—"Mary Taylor." Q.—How many boats did 3'ou have'? A.—I had six on starting out from San Francisco; I lost one boat, she was smashed aboard, and from that time I had five; that was in March I think. Q.—From that time you hunted with five. A.—From that time we hunted with five, co Q-—Where were you when you lost the boat, in what position generally speaking? A.—We was about off Cape Beale, I think about. 20 miles off shore. Q.—Did yon go to Hehring Sea? A.—I did. Q.—Did you Hep a log and a-record of your voyage? A.— I did. y.—Do you know what has become of that? A.—It was left with the schooner when I left her. Q.—And.3'ou have not seen it since? A.—I have not seen it since. Co Q-—Have you any recollection as to the time when you entered Behring Sea? A.—Somewhere between the 20th of June and the 25th, I am not certain, I think it was the 23rd or the 24th. Q.—How long did you stay in the Sea? A,—I came out of the pass about the last of July, I am not certain about that date there. Q.—Was it later than the end of July? A.—No, it was in July. IO 327 Q.—What was the occasion of your leaving the Sea at that time. A.—I heard that there was a number of schooners seized, and in fact I was told that the cutter was looking for me, my vessl, so I concluded to leave. Q.—How many seals did you have up to that date in the Sea? A.—I could not be certain, but I had about 700—730. or somewhere along about that. Q.—Can you give us the whole catch for that year? A.— The whole catch was 1,040. Q.—You are not certain as to the amounts you had in Behring Sea? A.—No. Q.—How was the weather when you left? A.—It was fine weather. Q.—Can you state generally in what part of the Sea you were working? A.—To the southward and westward of Saint George's Island. Q.—You would be able to indicate generally on the chart? A.—I would. Q.—Look at the chart of Behring Sea and give me you 20 position generally, by latitude and longitude, if you can? A. —(Examining chart) In the vicinity of 56 north latitude, 171 west longitude. Q.—It was about that position? A.—In that vicinity. I know the bearings of the islands. Q.—Did you have occasion to go for any water that year? A.—I had. Q.—Where did you go? A.—To Unimak Island. Q.—From what position did yon go to Unimak Island for water? About that position I named. Q.—When did you go? A.—I left the 24th of Jute. y.—Did you get back to the sealing grounds? A.—I never got the water. While I was going down for the water I spoke the schoxmer. y.—Y'ou quit sealing then, on the 24th of July? A.—No, I sealed—I think I sealed on the 28th—27th or 28th. y.—You did not go back to the ground where you had been? A.—I did not. y.—You have sealed in other seasons? A.—I have. y.—Are you going to be away for some time, Mr. McKeil ? 40 A.—I am not certain, I may have to go away. The Commissioners took recess until 2:30 p.m. 30 At 2:30 the Commissioners resumed their seats. Mr. Lansing:—If the Commissioners please, my learned friend, Mr. Peters, called for the logs of the "Ellen," the' 50 "Annie." the "Alfred Adams," the "Ada" and the "Grace" for 1887. Is that correct, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—I would like the "Alfred Adams." (Papers passed to counsel for Great Britain.) Cross-examination of Mr. Keil by Mr. Warren: Q.—Captain McKeil, you used five boats on the "Mary Taylor" throughout the season of 1887, or so long as you were in the Sea, did you not? A.—Let me see, yes. y.—And did you have Indians, or white hunters? White hunters. Q.—How many men in a boat? A.—Three men in a bo; y.—Is it an advantage to have three men in a boat? A.— Yes. y.—And you would not have such good results with two men in a boat? A.—Well, no. three men do better work than two men. 60 S*S£ !2S Q.—One of them pulls the boat, one of them steers the boat and one of them shoots? A.—Well, 3'es, the steerer's work is to get up on the seals, he steers the boat up on the seal. Q.—And outside of that time he also pulls? A.—Pulls or pushes. Q.—Is it a fact that sometimes the puller or steerer, or both, shoot? A.—Never, to my knowledge. Q.—But where there ar& three men in a boat, it gives the hunter better opportunity to shoot than where there are l0 only two? A.—Yes, the hunter has a better opportunity. Q.—And it is to be expected that he wenild have better results? A.—Exactly. Q.—What did the hunters use, guns, that year on the "Mary Taylor"? A.—Shot guns. Q.-'-Rifles also? A.- Rifles and shot guns. Q.—Did they buy their own guns, or did you- buy them? A.—The schooner bought 1 he*m. Q.—Both rifles ami shot guns? A.—Yes. Q.—-And did you -buy the ammunition? A.—Yes, every- 20 thing. • Q.—What was the tonnage of the "Mary Taylor? A.—I can't recollect, I think about 45 tons register. Q.—Was she a British ship? A.—She was under the 'British flag while I was on her. Q.—Registered at the port of Victoria? A.—Registered at the port of Victoria? Q.—Afterwards owned by Mr. Munsie was she not? A.—I believe Mr. Munsie bought her afterwards. Q.—When did he buy her? A.—I can't recollect that. 3° Q.—Who owned her when vou were in her? A.—Captain J. D. Warren. Q.—Did Captain Warren sell her to Mr. Munsie? A.—I don't know that; I was away from Victoria at the time. Q.—You think you went into the Sea somewhere between the 20th. and the 25ih. e>f June? A.—Ye>s. Q.—And came out the latter part of July? A.—Y'es. Q.—Because 3'ou heard of the seizures? A.—Yes. y.—In 1887 what boats did you speak in the Sea, if you .Q can remember them? A.— I spoke the "Pathfinder," the "O. S. Fowler" and the "Aelele," three schoners. Q.—You spoke the "Sylvia Handy." didn't you? A.—No. q—Which boat told you? A.—I t hink the "0. S. Fowler." y.—She was a San Francisco boat? A.—I think so, yes. y.—The "Aelele" was Captain Hansen's boat? A.—Yes. Q.—You did not see the "Little Triumph?" A.—No. Q.—You say that you were hunting down near the Aleutian Islands in July? A.—I believe I lowered down there, T know of once, and I nun- have lowered twice. 50 Q.—You took the most of your seals down in that vielnity, didn't 3'ou? A.—I got the most of my seals about 60 miles southwest from St. George's Island, in that vicinity; I can't tell the distance exactly^now, it was near a supposed island. It was marked on the old charts. Q.—50 or 60 miles in what elire'dion from St. George's Island? A.—To the southward and westwarel; I e'ouldn't say the exact beariugss. y.—You took 1,040 seals in the Sea that year? A.—No, (50 I took that for the season altogether. y.—And how many diel you take in the Sea proper? A.— Well, I can't tell exactly; I landed 167 seals on the west coast, and I caught somewhere about 100 on the way up, and the balance I got in the Sea. Q.—Does this 1,040 include the 107 that you landed? A. —Yes. y.— It includes 3'our entire season's work? A.—Entire season's work. 329 Q.—Where did you land the 167- A.—I think I put them aboard of the "W. P. Sayward" in Dodge's Cove. Mr. Bodwell west coast. :—Is that on the west coast? A.—On the A.—About 100 miles, A.—Yes, about M—Yes, nearer 20 30 Q.—How far from here is that? somewhere near 100 miles. y.—This side of Clayoquot Sound then? five miles from Cape Beale. io y.—More than 1,000 from Behring Sea? 1,500 miles. y.—And you sealed from that point to Behring Sea didn't you? A.—Yes, I sealed off yueen Charlotte Island, and several times afterwards on the way up. y.—And you are not able to state the results? A.—I am able to state the results of two days, I got 48 seais off Queen Charlotte,, and I think 41 at Port Lock Bank. y.—Did you lower in what is known as the Fair Weather grounds? A.—No, 1 did not go near them that year, 1 took a straight course from yueen Charlotte Island to Port Lock Bank. Q.—Does it make any difference in the results whether white men use canoes or boats, do 3rou think? A.—Yes, a great deal of difference. Q.—Does a white man get better results if he has a boat than if he has a canoe? A.—He has better results with boats. Q.—Why is that? A.—Well the white man can't get accustomed to a canoe as well as an Indian; at least I know I can't. Q.—You have tried it, have you? A.—I haven't- tried sealing; but I have tried going around in canoes. Q.—You have trieel to paddle a canoe? A.—Paddle them, yes. j | \£fjBs&i Q.—Did 3'ou ever use one with oars? A.—No- Q.—Do you think that a white man in a boat could get more seals than if he was using a canoe with oars? A.—A white man in a boat, shooting, would get more seals than an 40. Indian in a canoe shooting. Q.—A white man shooting in a boat would get more seals than a white man shooting from a canoe? A.—Yes, that is my opinion. Q.—Proportionately, what difference do you think it would make? A.—Well I can't say, but I think six good white hunters would be equal to ten canoes, the average canoes. Q.—You are now comparing white hunters with Indians in canoes? A.—Y'es. Q.—I want you to address yourself to comparing white men 5° in canoes with white men in boats? A.—I never had any white men get any seals in a canoe. Q.—Your white meu never use canoes? A.—They never did. Q.—Y'ou don't think that a vessel that had canoes, to be used by white hunters, would be as well equipped as. a vessel that had boats to be used by white hunters, do 3'ou? A. —No, I don't think so. Q.—Now you roam around the Sea a good deal looking for 60 seals, don't 37ou? Y'ou don't sta3' in one place? A.—Not if there is no seals there. Q.—Sometimes sail 50 or 70 miles a day? . A.—Yes, I have been further than that in 24 hours looking for them. • Q.—Do you think that because one vessel takes seals in Behring Sea that that is any indication that another could take them in the same place, or at the same time? A.-—Well, if the other one has the same equipment, she would stand a chance of making the same catch of seals. 330 Q.—There is a possibility you mean? A.—Possibility, of one vessel making a good catch, and another one close to her making a poor one, the same day. Q.—Just tell the Commissioners why this is? A.—The only reason I know is, that the seals are where one vessel is and not where another vessel is. Q.—Do you believe that because the "Mary Taylor" happened to lower her boats on a certain date in July at one place in the Sea, that, at a distance of 40 or 50 miles from IO that place, there is a probability, or a possibility, that the "Carolena," for instance, could have taken the same number of seals in another part of the Sea? A.—Certainly a possibility. Q.—Is there any probability? A.—I couldn't say for sure; 1he?re is a possibility. Q.—No basis on which you can absolutely reckon it, is there? A.—No. Q.—Do you think there is any basis upon which a comparative catch can be made—estimated catch? A.—I don't 20 know, I have never thought much, about it. Q.—How would you arrive at that result if you started out to reckon it? A.—I don't quite understand. (Question not pressed.) Q.—Where was the "Mary Taylor" outfitted that year? A. —San Francisco, when she started out first. Q.—In those days, were boats sailing from the port of San FraSisco better equipped and outfitted than vessels sailing from the port of Victoria? A,—I don't think they were. 0 Q.—Don't you know that they were. Captain, as a matter of fact? A.—Had a better equipment, sailing from San Francisco? Q.—Yes? A.—I don't think that they had, I don't know that they had. Q.—In the early days sealing started from San Francisco, didn't it, the sealing industry? A.—I don't know, I wasn't here. Q.—The first boat that ever went into the Sea and made a business of sealing was the "San Diego." wasn't it? A.— 4° I couldn't say, I might possibly have heard that, but I don't know that myself. Q.—-She sailed from San Francisco, didn't she? A.—I sailed from San Francisco. Q.—She sailed from San Francisco? A.—The "San Diego"? Q.—Yes? A.—I don'i know. Q.—Were you in Yictoria in 1886? A.—Y'es, the latter part of it. Q.—Were you in the Sea in 1886? A.—No, I wasn't sealing in 1886 at all. Q.—Why did you go down to San Francisco to outfit the "Mary Taylor" in 1887? A.—Well, I had nothing to say in the matter. The vessel was sent down there. Q.—Who sent her down? A.—Captain. Warren. Q.—Why did he send her down 1he>re, unless they were outfitted better at that point? A.—Well, I suppose perhaps it might have been cheaper to outfit her there at San Francisco. I suppose that was probably the reason she was sent there. g0 Q.—You used to carry provisions and board your crew and 3Tour hunters in that 3'ear, didn't yoii? A.—Aboard the vessel, yes. Q.—And did you furnish everything? A.—Furnished everything, yes. Q.—In those days boats equipped with Indian hunters used to sell some of the supplies to the Indians, did tlmv not? A. —I suppose they did carry some. On the sealing grounds? Q.—Yes. A.—Not that I know of. I never heard of it. 5° 331 Q.—You say 3'ou transferred your skins to the "W. P. Sayward;" that was another one of Captain Warren's boats, was it not? A.—Yes. Q.—Was it a common thing among the fleet for them to transfer cargoes from one boat to another? A.—Well, there were two steam schooners, and the skins were left in port for one of these schooners to take in to Victoria, if she happened to be going there. Q.—And the "Grace" was one of these steam schooners? 10 A.—Yes. Q.—And the "Dolphin" was the other? A.—Yes. Q.—And I believe the "Thornton" had auxiliary? A.—I have heard so. I never saw her. Q.—You say the "Dolphin" and the "Grace" would collect the skins from the ports where they happened to be left and bring them down to Victoria? A.—I don't say that exactly. If I remember right J spoke the "W. P. Sayward," and I think he had verbal instructions for me to deliver my skins up to him, and I went up to Dodge's Cove and did so. 20 Q.—Do you remember whether the "Dolphin" that year received any skins from other vessels of the fleet? A.—1 do not. Q.—Do you know whether the "Grace" received any skins from any other vessel that year? A.—No, I couldn't say that; I don't know. Q.—And the year before; I suppose 3'ou have no knowledge? A.—I have no knowledge. Q.—Could you approximate, Captain, the number of skins that you took between the place that you landed the 167 skins 3° down here on the coast and Behring Sea? A.—Yres. Q.—What is your best recollection? A.—I think about 97; it was under 100, a very few under 100. Q.—That would bring your catch in the Sea down to about 900? A.—Catch in the Behring Sea? The catch would be something over 700. Re-direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—You don't know why Mr. Warren sent the "Mary Taylor" to San Francisco, as a matter of fact? A.—He never told me, that I recollect, just why. Q.—And you are only giving an opinion without any actual knowledge? When did you leave Victoria after going out with the "Mar3r Taylor," when you left altogether? I understood you to say thaWyou left Victoria after you had been out on a voyage on the "Mary Taylor?" A.—No, I was never away only when I was sealing, except one year when I was over to Japan. Q.—You spoke about Mr. Munsie's buying the "Mary Taylor." As a matter of fact, you do not know anything about it, do,you? A.—I was over in Japan at the time. Q.—You don't know whether he did or not? A.—I have heard he did. Q.—You know Cotsford, don't yon? A.—Only by hearsay. Q.—Haven't you seen him? A.—I think I have seen him, but I wouldn't recollect him now. Q.—~You know that he is a halfbreed, don't Indi an? A.—Y'es. Q.—He would be apt to know something about a canoe, wouldn't he? A.—If he had been accustomed to be in one I suppose he would. Q.—As a matter of fact, when you speak of canoes, you are speaking of canoes manned by Indians altogether, aren't you, and using paddles? A.—Yes. Q.—You have been out sealing how many years altogether? A.—I have been sealing since 1887. 40 50 60 you, or part Q.—And you have gone -to Behring Sea how many times? A.—Six times. Q.—Now how does the track of your vessel in Behring Sea in one year compare with the track of your vessel the suc- e-eH'ding Yejffi, generally speaking? A.—Well, do you mean where I have sailed mostly? Q.—What I mean is this: Does j'our track in one year cover generally the same ground as your track the next year; generally speaking, I mean? A.—Well, 3'es; the track this year will cover the year before. Q.—Not precisely, but generally? A.—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—You can re-examine on this point, Mr. Warren, if you desire. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—You don't mean to say that there are any set courses in Behring Sea on which a vessel steers each year when she is sealing, do you? A.—No. Q.—As a matter of fact you go at random wherever you can find seals, do 3'ou not? A.—-Not exactly at random. For instance: If I go into Behring Sea next 3'ear, I will cruise around where I saw them the most this year; if there is none there I will— Q.—If you happened to get some seals last year where you never got any before, would 3'ou go there this year? A.—Certainly. Q.—Then 3'ou would go where you thought you would have ..good luck; is that it? A.—Well, I would prospect arounel ■ until I found some seals, and if I found enough to warrant my staying, I would stop. Q.—Oh, it depends very much on the judgment of the master of a vessel, does it not, where he will go? A.—I suppose everybody has their own ideas; all the masters. Q.—Will a ship that has an experienced master get better results than a ship which has a master who has never been in the Sea before? A.—Well, I suppose that a ship with an experienced master— The Commissioner on the part of the United States :-^-Mr. Warren, are you not rather departing from the matter which my associate had in mind? Mr. Warren:—I do not know but that last question does a little. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—My asociate had in mind the last matter opened up bv Mr. Bodwell. Q.—In all your experience in the Sea, Captain, can 3'ou mention a place where 3'ou always expect to find seals? A.— No, I don't know as I can, any particular place. Mr. Bodwell:—I now offer abstract from the book of William T. Bragg, which I mentioned 3Testerda3'. I have given a copy to counsel for the United States, and I propose to file the book with the Secretary, for the purpose of reference and comparison, if it should be necessary. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you desire to examine it before it goes in, Mr. Lansing? Mr. Lansing:—We would like to. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Y'ou had better withdraw it then, Mr. Bodwell, until to-morrow morning. (Abstract withdrawn.) Mr. Peters:—I wish te> put in evidence the original declaration made bv Mr. Warren, dated November 28th, 1887, cross- examined about by my learned friend, Mr. Dickinson. I tender the whole document. This is in the case of the "Carolena." . Dickinson:—Does my learned friend find any discrepancies between the printed one and this? Mr. Peters:—I only want the document in. original one in because it was more convenient, disereparicv between this and the printed one, that I know of. Mr. Dickinson:—I don't quite see how the statement of Mr. Warren can be competent. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What is your purpose? Mr. Peters:—Because my learned friend cross-examined Mr. Warren upon a certain paragraph of this document, trying to bring out, as I understood him, that there was some 20 difference between the statement that he had made in this declaration and the statement that he made here. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Are there any parts of that paper which so qualify? Mr. Peters:—The document, taken as a whole, shows that the statement made by Mr. AYarren upon its face is a statement made from certain information he had received from other parties, and that information is substantially correct; but I wish to put it in for the purpose of showing that he was 3° making a statement on its face based on information received from other parties. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Cannot you call attention to those portions to show that fact? Mr. Peters:—I submit that my learned friend having cross- examined in detail as to this document, leaves it open to us to put the whole document in. Mr. Dickinson:—That is not the rule, your Honour. Applying the rule, they cannot in that way get in evidence in chief which has no pertinency to the cross-examination; and, in order to get in any parts of it to answer to the cross-examination, they must re-examine the witness on the stand, and call his attention to the matter that modifies it. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—That seems to me to be the regular course, to pass it through the witness' mind in re-examination; if anything has been omitted which you think ought to have been brought out as affect- ?o ing the answers that were given. Mr. Peters:—This document would be evidence in this matter on another ground—evidence as showing the claim that was put in originally to the United States Government upon this matter. It would be evidence upon that ground to show what claim was made, what it was based on. Mr. Dickinson:—That would be a novel proposition. Mr. Peters:—I do not say that it is to be taken for granted 60 that every statement in there is correct. Supposing we 'started this case with the fact that we are now attempting to prove our case for the first time. Ought not reference to be made as to where the claim was put in before, when put in and how put in? Surely those are all facts relevant to this matter. it may not be that every statement in this documemt is to be taken as correct, but it is a fact in the case that this document was put in by Great Britain to the government of the United States as the claim it put forward. .M 334 io 20 30 40 My learned friend cross-examined upon that, and the fact that there were certain qualifying parts was brought to the attention of the Court and to his attention. I say the whole document, from beginning to end, qualifies the declaration that he makes a positive statement as to these matters. Mr. Dickinson:—It goes in as a part of their case, may it please your Honours, and we have to meet its statements. With all due deference to my learned friend, it is an entirely novel proposition that a man contemplating a law suit may send his claim to the party whom he seeks to charge, and then, when the case comes on for hearing at nisi prius—if we deduce our rules from analogy to nisi prius—put in that claim that he has made up as evidence. We do not so understand the rule. We cross-examined as to paragraph 8, • and called his attention to paragraph 8, which is independent, stands by itself, and is a reference to a certain schedule in which he states that the statement is made up from fisheries reports, but adds to that that the facts stated in those reports are true of his own knowledge, substantially. Upon that point I cross-examined him; and if my learned friend finds anything that modifies paragraph 8 from beginning to end, I would like him to call our attention to it. Certain it is that he cannot make it a part of his case by putting in a statement made by the owner, or in behalf of the owner, by the owner's agent. Mr. Peters:—That is just the very point. I say that this whole document from beginning to end does modify the statement, the second clause of which shows that he was stating information that he had received from some other person, which information, as a matter of fact, had been previously put in in the form of a declaration. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Has he not already stated on the stand that he was an agent of different parties, and that he collected his information from a number of sources? Mr. Peterjs:—He has so stated, but my learned friend takes paragraph 8 50 Mr. Dickinson:—Paragraph 7. Mr. Peters:—Very well, 7, and alleges now that that is substantially something that he knows of his own knowleelge. At that time, as a matter of fact, we could have read the whole of it. The matter was stated that the whole declaration ration was put before the Commissioners, and Mr. Dickinson at this moment states that that declaration is a statement of Mr. Warren's, on his own information, and which he believes to be absolutely correct. 1 will not, however, press the matter upon the Commissioners. 60 Neal Moss was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.;—You are a master mariner, Mr. Moss? A.—Yes. Q.—And live in Victoria? A.—Yes. Q.—How long have you been sealing? A.—Began about 1871, sir. Q.—What were you doing in the year 1886? A.—I was aboard the schooner "Favourite." Q.—Where did you join the Favourite?" A.—In a place on the west coast, called Skidegate. Q.—What had you been doing before that? A.—Master on the "Kate." Q.—And you changed to the "Favourite" for what reason? A.—Because I could get no crew for the "Kate." Q.—Did the "Kate" make her voyage to Behring Sea that 3'ear? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you go to Behring Sea? A.—Y'es, sir, I went to Bediring Sea. Q.—On the "Favourite?" A.—On the "Favourite." io Q.—In what capacity did you go? A.—I went as a kind of hunter. Q.—You mean you did not belong regularly to the crew? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were you on her all the time that she was in Behring Sea? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Do you know when she entered the.Sea? A.—About the 6th or 7th of July. 1 don't remember the date. y.—Did you have at any time any memoranda relating to dates of which you will speak in your evidence. A.—Yes, I 20 had them right'along to 1891. Q.—What happened then? A.—I had a schooner by the name of the "Ariel" which got ashore, and I lost all Bl papers. Q—That was in 1891? A.—1891. Q.—You say that you remember about the time that the "Favourite" entered the Sea? A.—Yes, about the 6th or 7th of July. y.—How long did you stay there? A.—As near as I re- member, to the 15th of August. 30 ' & y.—Did the "Favourite" have boats or canoes? A.—Canoes. y.—How many? A.—Ten and one stern boat. y.—And what kind of a crew? A.—Indians. y.—How long did you stay in the Sea? A.—As near as 1 remember, until the 15th of August. y.—How many seals did 3'ou get? A.—Well, we had a pretty good catch; about 2900, I think y.—Were 3'ou out in the year 1887? A.—Yes, sir. 4° y.—On what schooner did you go out in the year 1887? A.—The schooner "Kate." y.—In what capacity? A.—Master. Q.:—Did you seal in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And on the coast? A.—No; didn't seal on the coast? I sealed in the spring on the coast. Q.—What time did you enter the Sea in 1887? A.—I think somewhere about the 10th of 12th of July. Q.—When did you leave? A.—The latter part of August. Q.—How many canoes did you have? A.—Ten. 5° Q-—Indian hunters? A.—Indian hunters and two boats, one stern boat, and the other a regular hunter. Q.—How man3' seals did you get? A.—About 1800; somewhere around 1800. Q.—What is your total catch, both the spring catch and the; Behring Sea catch? A.—About 2300. Q.—Over what ground did vou work in 1887? A.-^In 1887? Q.—I mean generally; can you tell by looking at the chart? A.—I had a navigator with me. 60 Q.—Had you any idea youself ? A. (Examining chart)—Yes, right along here. (Indicating.) Q.—Can you give that by latitude and longitude? A.— yes. Q.—Do so, then? A.—169.30 and 56 and some 15 minutes. Q.—Did yottlftay in one place all the time? A.—No,, sir. Q-—Which wa3' did you go from there? A.—South. Q.—Towards what point ? A.—Towards Ounalaska, 336 I Q.—Then did you go any other way? -V.—The last 1 scaled was off Ounalaska, about 20 miles off Ounalaska. Q.—Have 3'ou any recollection now as to where you were in 1886 generally; I mean, as to 3'our locality in the sea? A.— Somewheres around the same place. That was Captain McLean's place. y.—Have you gone into the Sea in later years? A.—Yes, sir. y.—How many times? A.—Six times altogether. io Q-—In what capacity generally? A.—Three times as master. Q.—Now, generally, where did you go in the Sea? A.—I go the same place as I say here, 56 north and 169 west. Q.—Generally, that is about the point you make for? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Have you made a catch generally? A.—Generally made good catches. Q.—Now, in 1887 do you remember an3' particular days, or any particular events that happened with reference to the 20 catch? A.—I had one or two good days; one day I had 256, in August. Q.—In 1887? A.—In 18S7. Q.—Do you remember any other big days? A.—Yes, I had a big day off Ounalaska, the latter part of August. Q.—How large a catch did you make that day? A.—150. Q.—Do 3'ou remember what was the biggest day you had in 1886? A.—No, sir, I don't remember that. 3° Cross-Examination by Mr. Warren. Q.—I understand, Mr. Moss, that you were on the "Kate" until you joined the "Favourite" in 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you joined the "Favourite" over on ihe west coast? A.—Yes. Q.—At Mr. Spring's trading station? A.—Trading station, yes, sir. Q.—Do Mr. Spring and Captain McLean have a trading station over there? A.—Yes, sir, in them days they did. Q.—The "Kate" was laid' up that year? A.—Yes. 40 Q.—Over on the west coast, or was she brought back to Victoria? A.—Captain Spring brought her back to Victoria. Q.—Now, is it not a fact that she was laid up in 1886x because she had not made money the year before sealing? A.—■ Couldn't get a crew for her. - Q.—Could you not get a crew in Victoria? A.—Didn't try, sir. Q.—Could you get a crew on the west coast? A.—No. Q.—After he brought her back she didn't do anything? 5° A.—She was around trading on the coast. Q.—She didn't go out sealing at all? A.—Not in the summer, no. Q.—Not in the fall? A.—Or in the fall either. Q.—That was in 1886, was it? A.—In '86. Q.—I suppose, she could have been chartered by people here if there had been a demand for sealing vessels, couldn't she? A.—I don't know, sir. Q.—Could she? A.—I don't know as she could. Q.—She was not very busy, was she, during that season? A.—Had to have a vessel to attend to the stations. Q.—What vessel would have attended to them if the Kate had gone out sealing? A.—They would have, chartered a steamer to attend to it. Q.—What was the tonnage of the "Kate?" A.—She was 49 tons before she was lemgthened, and then she was abOut 60 tons. 60 y.—When was she lengthened? A.—A long time ago, and the register was never altered; the same 49 ton was on her. Q.—Before 1886 or after? A.—Y'es, a long time before 1886. Q.—She was sold in 18S4, an interest in her, is not that so? (Question withdrawn.) Q.—What time did you join the "Favourite" on the west coast? A.—About June, io Q.—Who was the captain of the "Favourite" that year? A.—Captain Alexander McLean. Q.—Did you go direct to Behring Sea? A.—Y'es. Q.—Seal between? A.—No, we didn't seal between there and Behring Sen. 0.—Did 3tou lower your boats for sealing? A.—No, sir. Q.^-You think you entered the Sea about the 6th or 7th of July? A.—Somewhere around there, yes. Q.—And remained in the Sea until what time? A.—The 15th cf August, as near as I can remember. 20 Q.—Are you not mistaken about that? A.—I don't think I am mistaken about it. y.—Was it not nearer the 30th? A.—No, sir; not if I remember. y.—Y'ou do not claiiu to be positive.about that date, do 3'ou? A.—I ain't positive. y.—There is a claim here about the Favourite, is there not, before this Commission? A.—I don't know, sir. y.—Was there a log book kept of the "Favourite" that year? A.—I think so. °S ' Q.—Did you see it? A.—See the catch? 0.—The log book? A.—No, I didn't see it: I had nothing to do with that. y.—Do you know what date the "Favourite" was warned out? A.—No, I forsret the date. y.—Did you ever know you were warned out, so long as .vou -were aboard the boat? A.—I saw the cutter speaking to the captain. y.—You did not know what the cutter said, did you? A. —No. 4 Q.—You were never told on the boat that you were warned out, were you? A.—Y'es. _ Mr. Peters:—This refers to the "Favourite's" case, this examination? Mr. "Warren:—He fixes the date of leaving the sea as the 15th of August, and I suppose afterward we might transfer this testimony. y.—©id you not take seals in that year after the 15th of 50 August? A.—I don't remember. y.—You would not say that you did not, would you? A. —I couldn't remember that. y.—Merely because you were warned out, you do not claim that you left the Sea immediately, do 3'ou? A.—No, we did not. y.—You sav vou carried ten canoes and one boat that year? A.—Y'es. y.—That was a stern boat? A.—Yes, sir. y.—How many Inelians did you have in each canoe? A.— 60 Twenty Indians; two in each canoe. y.—And who hunted in the stern boat? A—I did. Q.—How many men did you have in with you? A.—Had two hunters belonging to the schooner. y.—And were the Indians armed with guns or spears, or both? A.—They had spears and guns both. Q.—And did both the Indians in each of the boats shoot? A.—They changed about. Sometimes one steered and the ?8 other hunted; generally two experienced hunters in a canoe; they would take turn about. Q.—You spoke about Captain McLean's place. Captain McLean was one of the most experienced seal hunters in Behring Sea in those years, was he not? A.—He was supposed to be. Q.—He had that reputation, did he not? A.—Yes. Q.—And the catch of a vessel would depend somewhat on the skill and knowledge of the master, would it not? A.— IO Y'es, I guess, a little; and something about the vessel too. The captain had good knowledge about seals. Q.—That would make a difference in the results, wouldn't it? A.—I don't know; it all depends on how we come across them. New men can go in there and come across seals as well as men of experience. Q.—Is not a man who knows something about their habits better able to judge where to find them? A.—I don't know. Q.—And when you say that a man has the reputation of being one of the best captains in the business what do you 20 mean? A.—I mean Captain McLean was a rustler, and he was always on the go. Q.—You say you took 2900 skins that year? A.—As near as I can remember. Q.—Does that include the 500 you took from the "Onward"? A.—I don't know. Q.—Did you take any from the "Onward" in the Sea that 37ear? A.—Yes. . Q.—How manj'? A.—I don't remember how many there was. 30 Q.—Well, come now, recollect? A.—I couldn't remember. Q.—About how many? A.—I did not count them. Q.—Did you see Captain McLean take some off the "Onward" before the "Onward" was seized? A.—I see the "Onward" putting some skins aboard. Q.—Were they included in your 2900? A.—I don't know. Q.—You don't know that they were not, do* you? A.—No. Q.—What day did you take those skins off the "Onward?" A.—I don't remember the date. Q.—Do you remember the date that the "Onward" was 40 seized? A.—I think she was seized on the 2nd or 3rd of August. Q.—If she was seized on the 2nd of August, about what time with reference to that seizure was it that you took the skins off her? A.—About two days before. Q.—Now give us the best recollection of the number of skins you took off the "Onward"? A.—I don't remember, sir. Q.—Whatever you took off, were they included in the 2900? A.—I think they was, I ain't sure. 5° Q.—Then you do not know how many skins you actually took on your boats up there that year, do vou? A.—We had 2900 on board. Q.—Then that must have included those 3'ou took from the "Onward"? A.—Must have been. Q.—We have that fixed that the' 2900 included those you took from the "Onward." Is that right? A.—I think so, as near as I can remember. Q.—The "Onward" and "Favourite" were owned by the same parties? A.—Yes. 60 Q.—And they transferred their skins out in the Sea? A. Yes. Q.—How far was Mr. Spring's trading post from Mr. Munsie's trading post? A.—I guess about 10 miles. Q.—Were you at Mr. Spring's trading post in 1886? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—What lime of the year? A.—In 1886, I was there in June until I went away with the "Favourite," 339 Q.—Were you there before that time? A.—Yes, I was sealing out of there in the spring. Q.—When did you commence sealing out of there in the spring? A.—March, I think, that year. Q.—Were you there in February? A.—I might have been there. I ain't positive. Q.—Well, think about it? A.—I had been there in February some years, but I don't know about sealing. Q.—Did 3'ou see the "Carolena" down there that year? io A.—I don't remember seeing her that year on the coast. Q.—Do you remember Mr. Munsie had a trading post there in 1886? A.—Y'es, I knew he had some post there. Q.—When was that trading post built? A.—I think the same year' 1886. Q.—Early in the year? A.—Kind of temporal post; he wasn't there all the time; onl3' be up for the season, I think. Q.—He was there some time in the early part of 1886, was he not, he or somebody representing him? A.—Yes, sir, there was somebody there in the sealing season. 20 Q.;—Who did you see down there representing Mr. Munsie in 1886? A.—I don't remember who was there that year. Q.—Was there anybody there representing him? A.—Yes, I believe there was somebody looking after the store; I didn't call in; all I know they had a station. Q.—Were you not around near his store? A.—Our station is about ten miles from there. Q.—That does not answer the question. I asked you if you were around his store? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did Mr. Munsie send any supplies down there m 1886? 3° A.—I believe so, I didn't see it. Q.—They had some there, did they not? A.—Yes, sir, there was some there. Q.—You knew thev were trading with the Indians? A.— Yes. y.—And that they were giving supplies out for what they received from the Indians? A.—Yes, sir, the Indians were trading there. y.—And Mr. Spring thought that that post was in competition with his, did he not? A.—I don't know anything 4° about that. Q.—There was some talk abemt it, and that is the way .yon happen to remember, is it not? A.—I don't remember the talk about that. Q.—What other boats did Mr. Munsie have besides the "Carolena" in 1886? A.—I don't remember, sir, what boat he had. Q.—Do you remember that the "Carolena" was in there in 1886? A.—I remember the "Carolena." ,. Q-—Do you remember that she was at that trading post in -" 1886? A.—Yes, I remember she was there. Q.—What time of the year was she in there? A.—Oh, I don't remember what time of the year she was there. Q.—Was it before j'ou went away on the "Sayward?" A. —Yes. y.—How long before? A.—I couldn't tell. About a month or so. In the spring she was off and on there. y.—In the early spring? A.—I don't remember what time. 6o Q—Was it in May or before May? A.—Before May, I guess. Q.—And it was not when she left and went up to Behring Sea on her trip that you speak of? A.—She called in there before she went to Behring Sea. Q.—And then went right along up to Behring Sea? A.— I don't remember whether she went right along or went to Victoria first. Q.—The first time she was there she went back to Victoria? A.—Yes, I believe she did. i' ■ '"■■i 7-fcaagj^hjgE 340 Hilt Q.—Then the "Carolena" left Victoria in the early, part of 1886 and went out to this trading post and came back; is that so? A.—As near as I remember, yes. Q.—And then she called in again when she left here in May on her voyage to Behring Sea; is that so? A.—I don't remember that she did. Of course she had white hunters after that. Whether she did or not I don't remember. Q.—What was the "Carolena" doing up there when she was up there in 1886? A.—In Behring Sea? 10 Q.—No, there at the trading post? .V.—I think she was sealing that year in the spring. Q.—Where was she sealing? .V.—On the coast here. Q.—Was she buying skins of the Indians? A.;—Well, I guess he did that too. Q.—And gave them supplies for them? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you know of your own knowledge? A.—Well, that is the way they usualy do—supplies and money. Q.—Just tell me whether you know of your own knowledge whether the "Carolena" was purchasing skins from the In- 20 dians and giving them supplies in trade for them? A.—They were buying skins, either with money or with supplies. Q.—And you k'now that 3'ourself ? A.—Yes. Q.—Were you on board the "Carolena" when she was in there? A.—No. Q.—What boat were you on? A.—On the "Kate." Q.—And went trading in ihere? A.—No, sir, I was not trading in there; I was sealing. Q.—You were trading at Mr. Spring's place, were you not? A.—I was not trading. 30 Q.—At Mr Spring's post? A.—No, sir. Q.—What were you doing in there? A.—I was laying there in the schooner, getting a crew. Q.—How far did the "Kate" lie from the "Carolena?" A.— Ten miles between the stations. Q.—Could you see the "Carolena?" A.—No. Q.—Now, witness, when you took the stand you were asked about the catch of the "Favourite" in 1886? A.—Yes. y.—And you said 2,900 to the Commissioners, did you? A. —Y'es, about 2,900. Q.—Did you know when you stated that that included a considerable number of skins that you took from off the "Onward?" A.—Well, I don't know if them skins go into the 2,900. Q.—Did not 3'ou tell me a little while ago that you did know? A.—I think she had over 3,000 including them. Q.—You want to change your mind about that now, do 3'ou? Just state whether it is your opinion that that 2,900 included the skins off the "Onward" or not? A.—I don't think it did. 50 Q.—I believe you stated that the tonnage of the "Kate" was 40 odd tons; is that right? A.—She was 49 on the register, but she was 60 tons. She was 49 before she was lengthened, and that was never changed on the register. She was somewhere about 60 tons. Q.—Were you the master of her in 1887? A.—Yes. Q.—And you had ten canoes and two boats? One of those was a stern boat? A.—One was a stern boat. Q.—Was that boat used for sealing purposes all the time? A.—Hunting; yes, sir. 6e> Q"—That is, when the canoes were used? A.—Ten canoes and one boat sealing every day. Q.—I asked 3'ou if the boat was used whenever the canoes were used for hunting? A.—Yes, it was. Q.—So Unit \ou had eleven boats out all the time? A.— All boats all the lime. Q.—You went in there about the 10th of J11I3'? A.—Somewhere about the first part of July. I think the 11th. 4^ Q.—And you left what date in August? A.—The latter part of August. Q.—Fix the date in August, 1887, when 3ron left? .V. Somewhere about the 20th or 24th or 25th; somewhere around there. Q.—Is it nearer the 20th than the 30th? A.—About the 25th, I think. Q.—Was the sealing season over when you left? A.—No, I don't think it was. io Q.—Why did you leave? -V.—Because I saw some schooners getting seized. Q.—What schooner did vou see getting seized? A.—The "Alfred Adams." Q.—What date did you see the "Alfred Adams" getting seized? A.—I don't remember the date, sir. Q.—Did you leave right after you saw her being seized? A.—No. Q.—How many days after? A.—Well, it must have been a week or more after that. 20 Q.—You left about a week after the "Alfred Adams" was seized? A.—Somewhere around there, yes. Q.—.Was it two weeks after? A.—Well, I don't remember. Q.—If she was seized on the 10th of August, you think you left about ten days after that? A.—Y'es, sir, somewhere around there. Q.—Did you see the little "Triumph" in the sea that year 1887? A.—Which one? Q.—The little "Triumph"? A.—No. 3° The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is that the name of the vessel, Mr. Warren? 50 Mr. Warren:—There are two "Triumphs," and- to distir guish them they call one the little "Triumph." The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It is not a part of her name. Mr. Warren:—No, your Honour. ._ Q.—Your catch in the vear 1887 was how many? A.—About 4 1800 or so. Q.—Those were all taken in the Sea were they? A.—Yes. Q.—Any of them taken off any other boat? A.—No. Q.—Did you take any off any other boat? A.—No. Q.—Are you sure about that? A.—In 1887? Q.—Yes, you are quite positive as to that are you? A.— Y'es, Q.—How many did you take on the coast that year with the "Kate?" A.—I had 2,300 altogether for the season. Q.—Well, how many did you take on the coast. Let us get away from those figures 2,300 and 1,800? A.—About 500. Q.—Have you got anv memorandum book to show that? A.—No. Q.—Have you seen any memorandum book since the "Ariel" was lost in 1891? A.—No, I have not. Q.—Was your memory refreshed as to these figures by any papers? A.—I lost my books. Q.—I did not ask you that; I asked you if 3'our memory Go had been refreshed by any memorandum since 1891? A.—No, I don't remember. Q.—When was your attention last called to the fact that the catch was 1,800 in Behring Sea in 1887? A.—I remembered that. Q.—YVhen did you last see it on your memorandum? A.— Saw it in 1891 when I had my books. - Q.—And you have not seen any reference to it since? A. —No. nam 342 Q.—Did you look it up in 1891? A.—Well, I could not help seeing it, seeing my book every day. Q.—Did you see everything in the book every day? A.— Well, whenever I looked at it. Q.—Did you look at it in 1891? A.—Once in a while, yes. Q.—What occasion did you have for looking at the catch of the "Kate" for 1891? A.—I was seeing the catches for every season—looking over. Q.—Did you make a report to the British Commissioners 10 that the "Kate" did not go into the Behring Sea in 1887? A.—What is that, sir? Q.—I asked 3'ou if you made a report to the British Commissioners that were here in 1891 that the "Kate" did not go into Behring Sea in 1887? A.—She did go in. Q.—I asked you if you made a report or statement to anybody in 1891 that the "Kate" did not go into the Behring Sea in 1887? A.—I don't understand j'ou. Mr. Bodwell:—Ask him if he knows who the British Com- 20 missioners are. I don't believe he knows there are any such people. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Did you tell that to anybody? A.—Not that I remember. Q.—Did you give your memorandum book to anybody in 1891? A.—Not that I remember of. Q.—Did you give it to Mr. Spring in 1891? A.—No, not my memorandum book. Q.—Do you remember Dr. Dawson or Sir George Baden 3 Powell? A.—I do not remember them. Q.—Nor the fact of their being in Victoria in 1891? A.—I elo not remember. Q.—You do not remember telling any one in 1891 anything about what the catch was in 1887? A.—No, not that I remember. Q.—You could not have told them that the "Kate" did not go to Behring Sea in 1887? A.—No, I could not, I suppose she did. 4o Q-—Was the "Ariel" a total loss in 1891? A.—No, we got her up again. Q.—Did she sink? A.—Yes, sunk. Q.—And all the papers on board her were destroyed? A. —Yes. Q.—Where did you keep the book between. 1887 and 1S91? A.—I had it in the locker of the cabin. Q.—What boat were you on in 1888? A.—I was on the "Favourite." Q.—Did you have the book with you then? A.—Yes. Q.—What boat were you on in 1889? A.—On the "Kate." Q.—Did you have the book with you then? A.—Yes. Q.—What boat were you on in 1890? A.—On the "Ariel." Q.—And 3'ou had the book then? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you look at it every year? A.—Well, I generally looked at it once in a while. Q.—Did you take it out anv year between 1.887 and 1891? A.—Yes. Q— Did you look at it in 1891 ? A.—Yes. Q.—You remember looking at it in 1891? A.—I must have 60 looked at it because it was right there. y.—Do you remember looking at it? A.—Yes, lots of times. Q.—Do you remember looking at the catch of the "Kate" as stated there in 1891? A.—Yes. Q.—Was the book in the "Ariel" when she sank ? A.—Yes. Q.—Was the book in the locker of the "Ariel" when she 50 sank' A.—Y'es. Q.—Did you look there after she was raised? A.—Yes. 343 io Q.—Did you find the book? A.—No, the papers wen wet and destroyed whatever there was in there. Q.—You say in 1887 you had a navigating officer on boara and you did not know much where you went? A.—Y'es, we had a navigator. q.—YVhat did you have this navigator for, was it simply because of his knowledge of the seals or because of his know! edge of the waters? A.—The navigator is to get the position. I am not a navigator myself. Q.—Does position mean where the seals are or where there is water? A.—Position is to know where the vessel is. Q.—Just simply to take the vessel's position? A.—Yes, to take the vessel's position. 30 40 Re-direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—How were you paid in 1887? A.—I was paid $50 a month and two-bits a skin. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Has 20 not the witness been already examined on this point? Mr. Bodwell:—My learned friend has examined him as to his recollection of the figures of the catch each year. The witness has just said that he was paid so much per month and so much per skin. His living depended on how many skins he caught, to a certain extent, and that is a very good reason why he should know how many skins he took. To the witness:—Q.—How many skins did you get in the stern boat in 1886? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is not that a new matter? Mr. Bodwell:—I do not think so. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The examination of this witness has been extremely lengthy already. Mr. Bodwell:—Not on my part. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It has been pretty long on both sides, I may say. I believe this is a new matter as to what the stern boat caught. Mr. Bodwell:—Q.—Do you remember how many skins you got in the stern boat? A.—I got about 70. Q.—Do you remember the total catch of the "Favourite" or the total number of skins she brought back to Victoria in 1886? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Has he not told that three times? Mr. Bodwell:—It was brought out in the examination that the "Onward" transferred skins from the -'Favourite" and I ask him now if he remembers how many skins the "Favourite" brought back to this port at the end of the season and delivered in Victoria. That I submit your Honour is a perfectly relevant question. 60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The examination of this witness has lasted nearly an hour, and this is proving a fact from which we can adduce other facts. He is called now to meet a contested fact as to the average catch and to try and determine in some way that would be the probable catch of a particular vessel by proving the catches of various other vessels. In order that we should determine the principal issue we have got to try out here a subordinate issue as to how much this vessel caught that year 50 ■irriiAi ill II Hi H 344 in the Behring Sea. What I say with reference to this witness will also apply to other witnesses. You have had several witnesses like him before. Mr. Bodwell:—May it please your Honour, the matter presents itself to me in this way— The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I simply call your attention to this, but of course you can go on and examine the witness. When you have finished with io him, can you imagine that his testimony could affect 1he> minds of the Commissioners a great deal? Mr. Bodwell:—The cross-examination has attempted to prove that the memory of the witness must be wrong from the simple fact that the "Onward" transferred certain skins from the "Favourite" in the Behring Sea. There is a refiec1 tion on the credibility of the witness and I am now examining him on a matter which was brought out in cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—So 20 far as I am concerned you may proceed. I am speaking more with regard to future examinations than to this one. By Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Do you know the number of skins brought back and delivered by the "Favourite" at the port of Victoria at the end of the season? A.—I do not remember. Q.—What'was the name of the trading post where you were stationed and that you were examined about? A.— 30 Kyoquot. Q—Did you say that the "Carolena" came to Kyoquot? A.—No, sir. Q.—Where did she come? A.—She came at a place 10 miles away. Q.—Did you see her when she was at that place 10 miles away? A.—J did not see her but I know she was there. Q.—You only know from what you were told? A.—Yes. , Q.—And have no knowledge yourself about it? A.—No. 40 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Do you know how many skins were transferred from the "Onward"? A.—I do not remember, sir. This closed the evidence of the witness. 50 Charles Spring (already examined) was re-called on behalf of Great Britain. Examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—You were the owner of the "Onward" in 1886, Mr. Spring? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the owner of the "Favourite? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know how many skins were transferred from the "Onward" to the "Favourite" in Behring Sea? A.—I was informed 500. Q.—Were the accounts of the "Favourite" and the "On- Go ward" kept separately in your books? A.—Yes. Q.—And will they show the total number of skins credited to each schooner at the. end of the season? A.—Y'es. Q.—Can 3'ou give these figures here? A.—I can do so, but the'v are not at hand now. Q.—But you can get them? A.—I can get them later on. Mr. Warren:—Your Honours, we propose to postpone the cross-examination of I his witness until we get the books. 10 20 5o 6o Robert James Ker was called as a witness on behalf of Her Majesty and duly sworn. Examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Mr. Ker, you reside in Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What is the name of the firm you are with? A.- P. Rithet & Co., Ltd. Q.—Are they a joint stock company? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—A large institution, I believe? A.—Yes. Q.—And connected largely with sealing matters? A.—■ Yes. Q.—And they have beene in that business for a number of years? A.—Yes, since 1887 and 1888. Q.—In what capacity are you employed there? A.—I 'am the treasurer of the compan3' at present. Q.—And have a knowledge of all their business transactions? A.—Yes, sir. y.—And a particular knowledge of the sealing transactions, I believe? A.—Yes. y.—I will bring you to the point: Do they own amongst others a schooner called the "Maggie Mac"? A.—We acted as agents for her. y.—She was engaged in sealing? A.—Yes. y.—And also the "Annie Seymour"? A.—Yes. Q.—I believe these two schooners were fitted out in the year 1887? A.—In 1888 I think was the first year. y.—Those are two schooners that vou fitted out that vear? A.—Yes. Q.—The tonnage of the "Maggie Mac" is what? A.—70 tons. Q.—And she carries how many men? A.—23 men. • Q.—What is the tonnage of the "Annie Seymour?" A.—■ 113 tons. 30 Q.—And she carries 23 of a crew? A.—Yres. Q.—Have you made out from your books a correct state- Q.—What is the tonnage of the "Annie Seymour" and the "Maggie Mac"? A.—Yes, J have. Q.—Showing year by year what the cost of ammunition, -0 outfit, provisions, advances to crew, insurance, labour, sundries and wages are? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Under separate headings? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Can you produce that to the court? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And I believe you have the actual vouchers if requi ed? A.—Yes, I could not say for all. We have all of the "Maggie Mac"; every voucher. Q.—Is there any practical difference or is there much difference in fitting out these vessels in 1887 or 1886 and 1889? A.—I do not think so—I do not think there is much difference. Mr. Peters:—Without going through this because it will take a length of time, I propose if my learned friend consents to go through this statement generally and them put it in as a whole. Mr. Dickinson:—We certainly object to showing the outfit of the "Oarolena" in this way and we object further that you cannot show the outfit of even these ships by a statement of this kind or by this witness. Mr. Peters:—I do not wish to go into any very great detail. I took by chance two vessels which were fair examples of what it would cost to outfit. We are in the position, as has been already stated, with regard to the "Carolena," that on account of circumstances over which we have no control the matter has been allowed to drift for 10 years. The possibility of getting evidence to prove the case as clearly as we would like to prove it does not now exist and we have got to 346 do the best we can under the circumstances. I cannot see that my learned friend can fairly object to my putting in evidence showing what vessels of a similar character actually cost in other years. It is from- that that you must draw a comparison. Particular^' is that so when the.witness has made the preliminary declaration that it cost about the same to provision ships in 1889 as it did *in 1886. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—For how many years is that comparison? Mr. Peters:—I take the "Maggie Mac" for the years 1889, 1889 and 1891 and the "Annie Seymour" for the same three years. There are three years for each. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How long did it take us to go through the vouchers of the "Carolena" herself? Mr. Peters:—I do not know as to that your Honour. 20 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—And has not the opposite side a right to enter into the details of every one of these vouchers for each ship and for each 37ear? Mr. Peters:—Suppose it does happen that in order to prove our case there should be a lengthy cross-examination— and if my learned friend thinks he can get an^hing out of it that may become necessary^—is that any reason why we should not be allowed to present our case as best we can? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It seems to 3° me that where you go off from a particular case, the usual course is to ask the person who is proven to have the knowledge, general questions as to the cost, or as to the matter that he is sought to be interrogated upon. Then, of course, it is open to cross-examine the witness upon that. That course is usualte adopted in order to prevent wandering into particulars that are only relevant, if at all, in the general. It is frequently the case that witnesses who have the knowledge are asked for the general results of their knowledge, and it is competent testimony. It is not usual, however, to 4 descend to all kinds of particulars respecting it, and for the reason, that you may get into endless enquiries which might lead you away from the particular question at issue. Mr. Peters:—For that reason I had this statement made out in a short form and it in realit3' amounts to that very |||lame conclusion. I might ask this witness what it cost for ammunition for a vessel of so many tons, and by looking at this statement he could give me the answer. I thought it the more reasonable course to have made up a statement showing from year to year what these supplies cost and taking each vessel for three 3'ears. This, I believe, would shorten time and it was for that purpose that I did it. If I go into details on this statement it will only amount to the witness answering niy questions from the information which he has gathered in this document. Mr. Dickinson:—The learned Counsel has stated that he did not think that the Counsel for the United Stats could fairly object to this testimony. I beg to say that the testi- 6o mony in this case is to be printed, as I understand it, and will circulate in book form. I cannot permit this record to be made into history and circulated among people interested in this case—in m3T own country at le>ast—I cannot allow this class of testimony to go in without recording my objection and my protest. My learned friend says that 10 years have elapsed and therfore he must get secondary testiiwny or must be in the position of a party whose testimony has been destroyed. We IO have no objection to his getting the best testimony available but he has done that alread3'. He has had the owner of this ship the Carolena on the stand and the owner has testified that he has got either the original or a duplicate copy of every voucher for every dollar's worth of supplies that went on board that ship. The owner of the ship has admitted and has testified that he 4s fully able to, and that he is unembarrassed, in showing a voucher for the last morsel of supplies and the last shingle that went on the Carolena. Now it is proposed to corroborate the testimony of Mr. Munsie the owner and of Mr. Bechtel by putting in an account of what some other concern furnishes its ships with, and b3' giving details over again as to how certain other ships are furnished. Then we are asked to compare that ship with her tonnage anel her equipment of men with the ship now before the Court. We are asked to take another rule of general average such as is being applied in this case to the probable catch for which damages are claimed. We are given another rule of extraordinary probabilities from which 20 the Commisioners may adduce the value of the supplies. You have the testimony of Mr. Munsie, that he has put in certain supplies on the Carolena, and you have the details of these and consequently this testimony is unnecessary. Even if it were necessary it would be impossible to put in the furnishings of the ship from a statement made by the book-keeper. Counsel would have to show what they are. We object upon both grounds. The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—They would have all to be classified and analyzed exactly as in the 30 40 50 case of the "Carolena. Mr. Dickinson:—Exactly 60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We have had this question up for several days and it is an old question to the Commisioners. It is proving a contested signature by proving another signature likewise contested. That is the way it strikes me. If I understand my learned brother, that which you now eiffer to do, Mr. Peters, is not admissible. When you do what Judge King has suggested I shall give my views about it. Mr. Peters:—It is true that we have Mr. Munsie's statement but my learned friend says he is not satisfied with that. He contends that certain goods on board the Carolena were used for trading and were not used in regard to the supplies of that particular ship. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is a pure question of fact. I do not think Mr. Peters that you ever offered, before in your life, evidence of this sort in a Court of law. Mr. Peters:—I am not sure that it has ever come up in this form. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— is a question of fact as to what supplies went on board vessel and what become of them. Mr. Peters:—The learned Counsel on the other side attempted to show that Mr. Munsie's statement with re to the provisions put on board the ship is not correct and the supplies were too large and were unreasonable, is the line of their cross-examination from beginning to The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— they may say that with regard to every one of the ve that vou have claimed here. This this have mm at I'hat end. -And ssels IO 348 Mr. Peters:—And we have the right to give our evidence to C"iitradict that. Again I submit that if the.evidence is admissible at all it should be allowed, and that the possible length of the cross-examination should not be permitted to weigh against its admission. The Commissioner on the part 0% the United States:—You know perfectly well, Mr. Peters, that, as a rule, the Courts refuse to try subordinate issues, and chiefly on the ground that they would run out to great length. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I think we are of the opinion that the paper cannot be received. Mr. Peters:—I understand I cannot put in the paper as a whole, except by consent. The Commissioner on the part of the I'liited States:—Th» objection is not taken to the form merely. Mr. Peters:—The objection is taken to the substance, do I 20 understand? Mr. Dickinson:—I eibject to all this testimony, substantially. • f * Mr. Peters:—Take for instance the item of ammunition. Do the Commisioners rule that I am not at liberty to ask what the ammunition for the "Maggie Mac" cost in the years 1889, 1890 and 1891. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—As at pres- 3° ent advised my impression is that you could ask what would be a reasonable cost for supplying ammunition of this particular sort in 1886 and 1887, and then if you lay the foundation for it, proving that it would be the same in 1889; or at all events that the witness would give an opinion as to his knowledge in 18S6, as to his knowledge in 1887, and as to his knowledge of what was a reasonable cost of supplies in 1889. That is the way it stands as it appears to me at present. It occurs to me that on the objection you could not go through even the proof of what would be the cost of supplying a ves- 4° sel like the "Carolena" with supplies of a certain sort in the year 1889, that is the view of the objection I take. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—1 have not heard what Counsel for the United States has to say. about it but my impiession is to agree with my learned brother under certain qualifications. My present opinion is that you should call persons here who are in the habit of fitting out sealing vessels in 1886 and ask them the simple question: What would be the reasonable cost of the outfit of a vessel of 27 tons and a crew of so many men, for sealing in Behring Sea in 1886. That I believe would be within the scope of what the Treaty allows us to do although not even that might be allowed within the ordinary rules of evidence. The qualifications I would make would be these, and I think my learned brother would agree with me—I say this, subject to hearing what counsel for the United States haye to say about it—the qualification I make is that there should be but the one general question touching the entire outfit for a vessel of this class for 1886. That is a reasonable outfit. You should 60 not be compelled on your part to go into details, although of course on cross-examination counsel may go into details. We should not sit here to hear details with reference to matters of this kind? Mr. Dickinson:—Except, with regard to the vessel under consideration. The Commissioner on the part of Iter Majesty:—Y'es, and if we believed in the e-ompotency of the witness to answer the 5o general question, that is adequate evidence, and unless it is attacked it stands as pretty strong evidence. It should be proven, of course, that the witness has the requisite knowledge and information on the subject. I am merely expressing an off-hand opinion, subject, as I said before, to changing my mind upon the matter, after consideration. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I may add, that so far as we have heard yet, this witness does not io appear to be qualified in the matter. Mr. Dickinson:—I am also about to make an objection in that respect. Mr. Peters:—This witness may show himself all through the examination to be thoroughly competent on the details of the matter. However, having regard to the statement made by the Commissioners I do not propose to examine this witness any further. I propose to let this matter drop so far as this witness is concerned and to withdraw this document. 20 I do not wish to impress upon the. Commissioners evidence which they do not think necessary and perhaps in admissible. We shall attempt to prove this in another form. There is one matter still pending before the Commissioners, and before we close this case, as we intend to now, we would like to have the opinion of the Commissioners on the point I refer to. That is with regard to the documentary evidence tendered by us from the case of the United States. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Does the 30 case refer to these affidavits in any way, and if so in what way. Mr. Peters:—It refers to them distinctly, and in some instances recites them 40 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—In what way does the case refer to the affidavits? Mr. Peters:—I will take one example and read one passage from the case which I have already read before. "The herd spreads along the coast in a long, irregular body, generally advancing northward until they begin to enter Behring Sea," etc. There you will find a reference marked figure three in small figures, and that refers to a statement made by Charles J. Haig. It is the same with regard to several of the affidavits I have referred to. That affidavit is referred to for the authority for the statement they make. Mr. Dickinson:—That refers to something in the foot note 5° whether it is cited or not. Mr. Peters:—These were all served upon the British Government as a part of the case and as an appendix to the case; that is the way they are all referred to. If you take the American case you will find that these very affidavits are referred to in the case In' their number, and then the whole thing is served upon the British Government as an appendix to the case. 60 Tin- Commissioner on the part of the United States.—I will make a statement on behalf of Judge King and myself. We are not entirely in harmony about these affidavits that are offered. From conversation I have had with Judge King, I am rather of the opinion that he is inclined to the view that thev are admissible. The Commissioner on the part of Iter Majost\':- sure that thev are not adin®ible. -I am not 35° The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—I am not sure they are not admissible, although my mind leans strongh' to the side that they are not admissible, and for the reasons I suggested the other day. The conclusion we have come to is that on the whole, we must let these affidavits go in de bene esse; the question of their admissibility to be left to final argument. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I merely wish to add one word and that is to emphasize the observation of my learned brother. My frame of mind is simply one of doubt as to whether this may not be admissible; not feeling that it is admissible I have a feeling of doubt as to whether it may not be, and whether it may not be the subject of a serious argument by counsel. I merely wish to leave my own mind open to consider the matter when I have further light upon it. Mr. Peters:—Then I shall proceed. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I presume that it is not necessary to make an exhibit of these, because they are in a published document that is as exact as our own records. Mr. Peters:—These are so short that they may be taken down by the short hand reporter. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not know as the text has anything to it. The case refers to the fact, "That the males pass much further from the shore than the females, and travel more rapidly towards the islands." Then comes a note, figure 2, and the affidavit is a long one on that subject. The United States case cites this note as to what might possibly be said as to the migration of females. Is it possible that an affidavit, without any other matter that may be in it, can be read for all purposes as evidence, simply because of a statement in the text. Does one bald statement in the text on one subject, set the extract down as an authority? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It must have a direct bearing on that, which is said to' have some relevancy in this case. Mr, Dickinson:—The deposition of Brennan from which my friend proposes to read covers six pages of printed matter. Mr. Peters:—I propose to read only four lines. Mr. Dickinson:—And Brennan was a boat steerer. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—And a witness called on the part of the United States. Mr. Dickinson:—Do you say that we guarantee everything that was said by our witnesses? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Peters, your examination of Captain Warren as to the way in which his affidavit was made out, shows what the value of this evidence is. Mr. Peters:—I first refer to the evidence of Brennan. describes himself as a seafaring man of Seattle'. He The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest3f:—You are reading such particulars as you rely upon? Mr. Peters:—Yes. The witness Brennan says: "I am 37 years of age, was born in London, am by occupation a seafaring man, and reside at Seattle, in the State of 35i Washington. I have spent Ihe best ye$rs of my life in the close study of the denizens of the sea, including seals, and the mode of capturing them." Then he says: "Nearly all would lose money if the hunting was confined to the Pacific ocean, but they depend on the Behring Sea catch where the seals are more plentiful and occupy a more limited space as a feeding ground." Then at page 363 he says: io "When they arrive at Behring Sea, later in the season they start to work in earnest. The water is full of them, and you can hear them firing all around. The vessels enter the sea about July, but get the most of the seals in August or early September, when the weather gets bad, but they usually have a good catch by that time if not interfered with. When the hunting is finished they return to the home port, the crew is paid off, the vessel is laid up, and the owner takes charge of the skins, and either sells them in the home port or ships them to London." 20 I will now refer to the next one at page 548^ Volume 3, American Re-print. Mr. Dickinson:—Another affidavit? Mr. Peters:—This is a letter put in by yon. Mr. Lansing:—I would call your attention to the fact that Brennan was speaking at the time when he made this affidavit, which was in 1892, and he was not speaking of 1886. Mr. Peters:—The affidavit I refer to was dated in 1892. I 3 now propose to read an extract which is found at page 547 of the same book. Mr. Dickinson:—Is it set out in the American Case? Mr. Peters:—It is part of the appendix to the case of the United States. It is a letter from C. M. Lampson & Co. to C. A. Williams. Mr. Dickinson:—I cannot permit this to be continued without raising a question about it. This does not appear to be 4° cited in the American case. Mr. Peters:—Yes, in the same language. Mr. Dickinson:—This is a letter to some one from some one else. If, hereafter throughout the Convention between Her Majesty's Government and the United States, this controversy should be carried through; is it possible that the United States could hold Great Britain responsible for, and hold her as admitting the testimony of every witness that has been 50 called here. Nay, more, will the United States hold Great Britain as having admitted every piece of documentary testimony put in by her; nay, more, could the United States hold Great Britain not merely to have admitted some fact that she cited from- a letter in the course of argument or in the course of stating the case, but hold her responsible for admitting every other fact contained in that letter? Mr. Peters:—That is the very same fact. Mr. Dickinson:—We submit with great confidence that we 60 are wandering; wandering away from suitable authentic testimony, not to say anything of competent relative and material testimony. We submit that it is incompetent and irrelevant when we charge one party in a controversy at Paris, as having admitted whatever proof they offered, and binding them to that proof. How does one know what a witness is going to sa3'? Brennan is supposed to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but a part might be taken from his affidavit probably if he did tell the truth, 352 ! IO 20 30 40 SO 60 1 111::':' which would not suit the counsel in the case. In many respects, if he is a good witness.and an honest man, he might differ from the case of the United States. How could, his evidence be binding on the I'nited States? It is a novel proposition to bind the United States by an affidavit, as an admission on their part simply, because a witness used it on their side. The analogy is perfect when I say that we .might as well bind each government in this case by the evidence of whatever witnesses they brought forward, or by what is contained in any document produced by them? Mr. Peters:—This reference is expressly set out in the case word for word. I have already read it without objection. Mr. Dickinson:—How did we know what 3'ou were going to lead, and how do we know whether we will object to it or not until we hear it. Do not criticise me for not objecting. You are now about to read a letter which I know nothing about. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty.—Mr. Peters if it is in the same terms as the passage you have read, it is hardly worth while. Mr. - Dickinson:—Counsel on the other side cannot put much confidence in the evidence they produce when they have to fall back on old affidavits to make out their case. Mr. Peters:—My learned friend is welcome to that remark, but. I do not think he will take much pleasure out of it if he should come to say that his own affidavits are in-correct. Mr, Dickinson:—Some of them are no doubt incorrect, although the witness may have told the truth as he saw it. If this testimony of Mr. Brennan's is put in, I certainly would be entitled to cross-examine Mr. Brennan as to it. Mr. Peters:—Y'ou can call Mr. Brennan as your own witness, or you can cross examine him if you like. I will show 3'ou the references which I wish to put in, and then, if there is any reference 3'ou wish to object to you can make your objection. Mr. Dickson:—I do not make the objection, except to preserve my respect as counsel. Mr. Peters:—The reference which I propose to read is from page 548 of the appendix, Volume 3 of the United States case. It is word for word in the case. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Then it is not necessary to read it. Mr. Dickinson:—It is the report of the American commissioners and not the American case. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—It is put in as part of the case. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I think it is right to say a word in addition' to what I have already said. I spoke the other day generally about affidavits and I spoke about Mr. Peters' contention: That this was a continuation of the same case and that if these affielavits were used in another part of the case by the United States they could be used here. Now, in the great majority of international arbitrations to which the United States have been heretofore a party, proofs were necessarily taken by affidavits because there was no other way of doing it. I have looked over some of the treaties which I have had within my reach, since this matter came up, and there is nothing provided in them as to the nature of the evidence that should be offered. But here, we are bound to take either oral testimony or to demand suitable and authentic evielence. We are not at all 23 in the position that (he Paris Tribunal was in that respec We are not compelled to take affidavits. We are here with all the appurtenances of an ordinary court of law. I do not mean to say that "suitable, authentic testimony" means exactly the evidence that is admissible by the strict rules of Common Law. We have not proceeded on that theory, and probably hone of us would agree to that theory. I repeat that we are not in the position of these Tribunals who have been compelled to take affidavits. We all know as io practical lawyers, how relatively worthless some of these original affidavits are. For my own part I would rather have a letter than an affidavit; because the letter is the natural language of the person writing it; while affidavits, like these attested here, are drawn up formally and stiffly by others and are then signed by those who make them. They have always been rejected by all courts except in the earl3' stages of the proceedings, and in cases where they have been compelled to receive them. In cases for a preliminary injunction we are compelled to accept affidavits, but get rid of them as soon 20 as we can. Nobody ever heard that affidavits could be read afterwards against a party because he offered them in the early stages of the case. My own views on this matter run strongly in that line. I understand that Judge King has no decided view about it, except that expresed by him, namely, that it might turn out, upon further investigation, that these affidavits were admissible. Where there has been any doubt on an issue raised, we have reserved it, because we are fee ing our way to a certain extent. We have been compelled to reserve a decision upon grave matters, and more than that °3 under the constitution of this commission—as I think counsel will understand—if either Commissioner feels that he is to get light from certain proof the other Commissioner is not in a position to deny him the benefit of that light. That is the position of things. 1 feel that I ought to make these remarks, and I address them to counsel to a certain extent. While the Commissioners feel that they are bound to let this evidence in now, and reserve it for future consideration, yet the Commissioners cannot tell how wide the door thus opened will be availed of for the putting in of speculative evidence, which 4° should not be adduced. If the case is opened to these affidavits for one side, even de bene esse, it is open for both sides. I make these remarks rather for the consideration of counsel, because counsel on both sides must know, of how little value this class of evidence is, when we have witnesses here to prove practically the same issues. I do it with a view of urging counsel to consult among themselves, and if this kind of evidence is to go in, to relieve the Commisioners from as much of it as possible. 50 Mr. Peters:—I shall give to Mr. Dickinson the citations which I propose to lay before the Commissioners. That may save a good deal of trouble, because when he sees them he may not raise objection to them. I shall do that this evening. The Commissioners then rose. 10 40 5° 6o 354 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, .December 10, 1896. At 10:30 the Commissioners took their seats. Mr. Peters:—May it please your Honours; there is a witness named Cotsford who has been mentioned several times in the course of these proceedings. I understand that Mr. Cotsford is at some distant place but we are in hopes to be able to get him. There is a possibility of his being obtained, and before closing this case I wish to reserve my right to examine him if we can get him. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—On what point do 3'ou wish to take his testimony, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—He was one of the hunters employed and I wish to examine him in regard to his experience as a hunter; to show the quantity of seals actually around when the "Carolena" was seized, and also the :apability of the crew as to hunting. He is the only one of them we have been able to get at. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You will limit his examination to these points. Mr. Peters:—Oh, yes. Mr. Dickinson:—We have been searching for Mr. Cotsford and some others of the persons named, and we think we will be able to get Mr. Cotsford for you. Mr. Peters:—We think so, too, but if you can get him it would save us the trouble. We have one other witness to call, as to the rate of interest, and he is on his way here. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is that all 3'ou have, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—That is all we have, with the exception of these documents we have discussed so much and of which T have prepareel a list which I will give to my learned friend in a few moments. The question as to these might stane1 later until perhaps we can come to an arrangement, or the Commissioners perhaps might come to a conclusion upon it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand we have come to the conclusion that they are to go in de bene esse. Of course there may be some sifting out; but I mean so far as they are covered by the ruling yesterday. Mr. Peters:—I have given to my learned friend the list, and 1 think m3' learned asociate understands that they are to go in. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Oh, 3'es; then if he has any objection to any part, he can let us know perhaps. It could be laid without any further statement before the Commisiouers. The putting in of these affidavits applies as much to all the cases for 1886 as to the case of the "Carolena." The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We understand 3'our witness will be here in a few moments, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—Y'es, your Honour! Mr. Bodwell:—Willi reference to this abstract referring to the e-atch of th" "Mary Ellen," I have shown it to Mr. Lansing and he has suggested some changes in the form. That cannot, perhaps, be put in this morning but will be some time during the day. The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—Any time. It is a mere matter of convenience any way. Mr. Peters:—There is one document more which I would like to refer to and put in as evidence. It is contained in a report of the Committee of Merchant Marine and Fisheries in the House of Representatives in the matter of investiga- 10 tion of the fur seals and other fisheries of Alaska, published by the United States Government. The document I shall refer to is the testimony of Capt. Shepherd, the seizing officer, which is contained on pages 229 and 230. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The seizing officer of what? Mr. Peters:—The Captain of the "Richard Rush." Possibly this may stand in the same way as the other documents, and I will show it to my learned friend. 20 30 There is one other report I wish to refer to, but I will give a list of them and the3T can be put in afterwards. Mr. Dickinson:—Actually this list was furnished us but we have not had an opportunity of examining it. We do not know how far it will go nor what there may be in it that we will have to meet on the part of the United States. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand the list wil be furnished? Mr. Peters:—Now. 40 Percival Rideout Brown was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. Examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Y'ou are a resident of Yictoria, Mr. Brown? A.—Yes Q-—And have been such for a great number of years? A. Since 1872. Q.—What is your position, or occupation? A.—At present I am manager of the Yictoria Branch of the British Columbia Land and Investment Agency. Q.—What busines does that institution carry on? A.— Lending mone3'. 5° Q.—Your business is an extensive one? A.—Yes, sir, the largest financial institution in the country. Q.—Were you here in 1886? A.— Yes. Q.—Engaged in business? A.—In the same class of business. Q.—In what company? A.—This same company. Q.—Were thev making loans in British Columbia then? A.—Y'es. Q.—And in Victoria? A.—In all parts of British Colum- is k'a' 00 Q.—What different classes of loans did they make? A.— All kinds,' promissory notes, mortgages, all kinds of loans. Q.—On what terms of payment, as to time? A.—Well, on the mortgages, there were very few exceeding one year, and on promissory notes rarely exceeding three months. Q.—Did you sayjKhat the term of payment of the mortgages rarely exceeded one year? A.—Rarely exceeded one vear 356 Q.—Was that the usual course of business at that time? A.—I think so. It was the established rule with us. Q.—The term of payment was usually one year? A.—On mortgages, yes. Q.—Were these terms extended at all? A.—Oh, yes, many of these mortgages ran on for a number of years. Q.—You refer then to the form of mortgage? A.—The form of mortgage. Q.—The covenant for payment would be at the expiration io of one ye'M? A.—Yes. Q.—What was the ordinary rate of interest on a loan secured upon first mortgage on real estate in the years 1886 and 18S7? A.—On city property or on farm land? There is a difference in the rates. 0.—Give us both? A.—Well, on a good loan in Victoria or New Westminster the first mortgage would be 8 per cent, and on farm loans it would vary from 8 per cent, to 10 per cent. Q.—Did you loan money on personal security without the 20 collateral of real estate? A.—Yes. Q.—At that time? A.—Yes. Q.—What was the usual rate of interest upon a loan to a man of ordinal credit on his personal note? A.—The ordinary rate? Q.—Yes. A.—At what time? Q.—In 1886 or in 1887? A.—It would not be under one per cent, per month. Twelve per cent, per annum. Q.—Have these rates continued down to the present time? A.—On the promissory notes. 30 Q.—What is the rate at present for loans of the class I have mentioned, namely security by mortgage on real estate? A.—Well the rates there have dropped a little during the last three 37ears. Q.—To what extent have they dropped, in the last three years? A.—Probably they have dropped to six and one-half per cent on first class security on good mortgage and a large margin. There was probably one and one half per cent, reduction. Q.— That has only taken place within the last few years? 40 A.—Within the last three or four years. Q.—Let me put a case to you. Supose you had a loan, offered to you on city property, and suppose you had the e-ash valuation of your valuator, and the borrower wished to get two-thirds of the valuation by way of an advance, what would be the ordinary rate of interest? A.—At what time? Q.—Now? A.—Oh, well, our rate would not be under eight, per cent. |§§l|hen I say the. rate has dropped to six and one-half per cent., that is for first class security. 50 Q.—Do you still loan mone3r on that class of security? A.— Oh, ves. Q.—To any extent? A.—Yes. Q.—I do not remember whether I asked you about the rate on promissory notes, a personal loan unsecured by real estate at present? A.—It would not be under 12 per cent. Q.—Now, did you know Mr. Munsie in these years, 1886 and 1887. A.—Yes, I hal|e known him many years. Q.—Did 3'ou know his financial standing? A.—Well, personally, I have always considered his financial standing very 60 high. Q.—What I want to ask you is this; What is the rate which a man of his financial standing at that time would have to pay for a loan of money unsecured by real estate mortgage, or other collateral security? Mr. Dh'kinson:—Of course that would not be the rule of damages. If the rule of damages is interest, I submit, may IO it please 3'our Honours, that the standing of a man whether he is worthless or not, cuts no figure. Mr. Bodwell:—What I want to prove by this witness is: I do not know whether I laid my foundation exactly or not— what would be the rate of interest a man of his financial standing—not this particular individual but a man of his general repute and financial standing—what would be the rate of interest he would have to pa3' if he wanted to get money to supply the place of the loss which had occurred to him by reason of this seizure? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Why do you not put it in a general way? That would meet the objection of the counsel of the United States. Mr. Bodwell:—I would, if I knew exactly what the point raised was. Mr. Dickinson:—The point is, that if you are entitled to 20 interest at all—and we will have something to say on that later—then the way to prove interest is to prove the current rate. Y'ou cannot go into specific instances and say what one man would pay and what another would pay. You have to take the fact as concluded, that the man for whom you seek damages-by way of interest could have borrowed the money. You cannot go into the special circumstances and say that he w^s of such financial standing that he could not borrow the money at five per cent., and that because of his financial standing he had to pay twelve per cent., neither can 3° you show that because of his good financial standing he got the money cheaper. 40 Mr. Bodwell:—That is exactly the position that I thought I placed myself in. I wish to prove generally what class of individuals Mr. Munsie belongs to, and here is a witness who knows: He knows the standing which Mr. Munsie had in financial circles. Then the question I proposed to ask was: What a man of that financial stantling would have to pay in interest for an advance of money?. Mr. Dickinson —That we submit is immaterial. Mr. Bodwell:—If +he Commissioners think that question should not be answered, I will ask another. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Youhael better put it in a general way I think. It is not necessary for you to show that Mr. Munsie was in good financial standing and that he would get a lower rate of interest than one 50 whose standing was not so good. When 3'ou prove that he was of excellent financial standing you bring him up to the average or above it, and you bring him into the class of persons who could borrow at current rates. If you get the current rates, you would probably get all you are entitled to. Examination resumed by Mr. Bodwell: (To witness.) Q.—What was the current rate of interest at. which a man of good financial standing could borrow 60 money and on personal security, in 1886 and 1887, without collateral? A.—It would not be under twelve per cent. Q.—And that rate continued down to what time? A.—It is the prevailing rate to-day. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Do you mean it is the prevailing rate with you? A.— With our company. SSSSS233HSES t-sa 358 Q —Do you mean it is the prevailing rate in the banks of deposit? A.—I think possibly their rate is lower. Q.—Y'ou think it possible that in 1886 the rate was lower in the banks of deposit, was it not? A.—It may have been a shade lower. ■ Q-—You are not familiar with anything except the rates charged by your own institution? A.—Not very familiar, no. Q.—And your institution was a land investment agency? 10 A.—Yes. Q.—And chartered as such, and you receive no deposits? A.—We do. Q.—Do you take deposits in the sayings department? A.— Y'es. Q.—You do not take commercial deposits? A.—No. Q.—In Victoria, in 1886, 1887 and 1888, money was quite largely invested in the sealing industry was it not? A.— I can hardly speak on that question. Q.—It was one of the principal industries of Victoria? A. —I am aware there was a very large amount of money invested in it. Q.—And sales were made of the catch in the Fall? A.— I presume so, but our business did not bring us in touch with that particular branch. Q.—You never were in touch with that particular branch 20 of business 3 A.—They did that business in other banks. Examination of witness closed. 30 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand Mr. Peters, that you have now closed your side of the case, except as to these matters to which you have referred. Mr. Peters:—Yes, your Honour. Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Dickinson, when will 3rou be able to go on with your side of the case? 40 Mr. Dickinson:—We had no advice until last night that the probabilities were that my learned friends would close this morning, and so we would probably economize time if we looked into the matter and determined as to what we would answer in their case, and especially what we would not answer. For this purpose, so far as the session in Victoria is concerned, and especially as we are dependent upon such witnesses here as we can get, we would like a little time to look over the matter. c0 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Do you mean, before saying what time you would need for adjournment? Mr. Dickinson:—Oh, no. We would not need longer than a day, and if your Honours prefer to restrict us to a briefer time, we will endeavor to commence to-day. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We have to follow your judgment in this matter. Do you think ATou could resume at half past two? 60 Mr. Dickinson:—I hardly think we could, Your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Better say in the morning. Mr. Dickinson:—Very well, Your Honour. I could proceed now with some documentary proof so as to save time. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:'—Let me ask further, Mr. Peters, will you be ready to go on with the next case as soon as the United States close their case barring your rebuttal evidence. Mr. Peters:—-We elo not know, evidence. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is there any difficulty in having your witnesses in attendance? Mr. Peters:—We will get all the witnesses we can, bu io just at the present time, not having a clear idea as to what the nature of their evidence ma3r be, I can hardly make a statement. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not mean your rebuttal witnesses, but the witnesses in the next case. Mr. Peters:—Oh, yes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. 20 Dickinson, you say you have some proofs you can put in now ? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, Your Honour and it would save time in the morning. THE CASE OF THE UNITED STATES IN ANSWER TO THE CASE OF HER MAJESTY. Mr. Dickinson:—In connection with what my learned friend has put in, I now propose to read Sir C. H. Tupper:—The time to do that was .when we put ours in. Mr. Peters:—Mr. Dickinson, if you will excuse me a moment. Before my learned friend reads that, I wish without argument, to take an objection to my learned friend read- 40 ing as evidence on his own side, any statement made in the American case or in the appendix to the American case. My learned friend is at liberty, if he can do so, and as far as I am concerned, to use any part of the British case as against Great Britain; but I submit that under no rule of law or evidence can he use a statement made by the American Government in support of their case. The statements he now proposes to read cannot I humbly submit, be put in for the purpose he intends because it does not in any respect qualify the other statements. It is a statement of a distinct and 50 separate nature, not qualifying what has been already put in. I submit that he cannot put in these separate and distinct, statements of fact. I do not wish to argue the point at any great length, but that is the contention we make: If these statements are evidence against the .person or Government who makes them, they are not evidence in favour of that person or that Government. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand it is all one case filed at the same time with the go arbitrators, was it not? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, Y'our Honour. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:- filed at one time and in one statement. Mr. Peters:—And contains many different statements of fact, some of which are material here, and some of which are not material. IO 20 40 50 60 360 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We are not talking about those that are not material. Mr. Peters:—For the sake of argument for instance, there was no harm in referring to this particular quotation that my learned friend is about to read. As part of our case we put in certain statements in their case, to show that there was a large number of seals in Behring Sea. That is the point of the case of the United States which makes another statement altogether, and that is that there were certain difficulties sometimes in killing these seals. That is a separate and distinct fact. We put it in for the purpose of showing such and such a state of facts, and my learned friend puts in another state of facts altogether. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I am free to say Mr. Peters that I gave this full consideration, and to my mind there is no part of that case which is material to the issues here. Your proposition is, Mr. Peters, that you can single out particular affidavits from the American case and shut out other affidavits, put in for the special purpose of qualifying the statements in the affidavit you read from. Mr. Peters:—I have no objection to affidavits or statements that qualify. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand that Mr. Dickinson proposes to read only what would qualify. Mr. Peters:—I know he alleges thai he puts it in for the purpose of qualifring. My view is that whilst on the one hand it is put in because they say it qualifies The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How are we going to determine the manner in which it qualifies until we hear it? Mr. Peters:—When I put the evidence in it appears to me that my learned friend should have asked to put in anything that would qualify it. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I think, Mr. Peters, he can do that, at any time. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand, Mr. Peters that this objection is taken by you to save your rights, more than anything else. . Mr. Peters:—That is all. Mr. Dickinson:—Does Your Lordship care to hear from me on the question in reply to Mr. Peters? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Certainly. Mr. Dickinson:—My learned friend says we cannot put in part of the American case as evidence in chief? I fully agree in that and from the beginning to the end of this case I will not be heard opposing the contention that we cannot put in any part of a statement made by us or in our behalf as evidence in chief for the United States. Neither will I be heard to ask to insert any. part of the British case relating to one subject, unless I put in all that be^ars on that subject in the British case; under the rule indicated by the learned Commissioners, which as I understand it is that the matter can go in to be reserved for argument later. But let us see on this point, and then your Honours will see the competency of the testimony I propose to read—competent if the testimony offered by my friend from the American case was competent. He offered it to show that seals were there, on that part of his case in which he sought to 10 3o 4° show the probable catch. He offered the par1; of the American case, showing where the seals were, as evielence, if evidence at all, tending to show that, if seals were there he could probably have got them with his ship, the "Carolena," and for no other purpose. Now, to qualify that statement in the American case we show on our side that in the same case*, non constat, the seals were there, yet there were such difficulties in the way that, by the very stalements e>f the American case, and referring to the notes, the "Carolena" could not have caught them, if they were there, in any such quantities as claimed. Therefore, it qualifies the statement which my learned friend makes so far as it bears upon the probably catch directly, and I will read from page 191, commencing at the second paragraph, American Re-print, Volume 2. I only read what is imported and read into the American case, and receives the endorsement of the American oase. Doctor Allen says: "Those only wounded, whether fatally or otherwise; dive and escape capture. The less severely wounded may; and in many cases doubtless do, recover from 20 their wounds, but in the nature of things many others must die of'their injuries. There is a wide range of chances be tween an instantaneously fatal, or disabling, shot and a slight wound from which the victim may readily recover, with obviously a large proportion of them on the fatal side of the dividing line." At page 193, same volume: "It is only necessary, in order to show how much the unskillful out number the skillful hunters to refer to the agreement entered into by the members of the Sealers' Association, of Victoria, British Columbia, for the season of 1891. "The portion of the agreement referring to this matter is as follows: We also bind ourselves not to take more than three experienced hunters in the sealing business on each vessel represented by us, said hunters, to be engaged at the scale or lay adopted by this Association, as hereinbefore particularly described; and we also agree that all hunters required in excess of the three hunters above mentioned for each vessel shall be new men at the business of seal hunting, and shall be engaged at the same scale or lay hereinbefore mentioned, and this clause shall apply to all vessels owned or controlled by the members of this Association, whether clearing from the port of Victoria or other ports in Canada or the United States, or any port where any vessel owned or controlled by any members of this Association may be fitting out for sealing on this coast." At page 195 Charles Chalall, a seal hunter, says: "The average hunter would get one out of every three seals shot; a poor hunter, not nearly so many." Thomas Gibson, a seal hunter, or engaged in the sealing business since 1881, says: 50 "An ordinary hunter would not get more than one out of every three or four that he killed." Daniel McLean states: "That about one-third are taken." And Captain Martin Benson, of the sealing schoner "James G. Swan," says, about sixty per cent, are lost. E. W. Soron, mate of a sealing vessel in 1888, says: "We only got about one out of every, five killed." Thomas Brown (No. 1), a boat puller for three years, states: "I don't think we got more than one seal out of six that we killed." Caleb Lindahl, a seal hunter, says: "On an average a hunter gets one seal out of four. I have known Go of poor hunters losing nine out of ten." Henry Mason, aisb a seal hunter, says: "I do not think they would get. more than one seal out of every six or seven they shot, and sometimes only one out of ten." Sir Hibbert Tupper:—Would you mind adeling to that statement the four lines at the top of page 195 just preceding these witnesses. 362 Mr. Dickinson:—That is already in the case, read before by me. Hi 10 20 40 5o 60 Sir Hibbert Tupper:—Not in connection with that paragraph. Mr.' Dickinson:—Precise^', in connection with your testimony; I put it in before. Sir Hibbert Tupper:—Would you have any objection to reading it as introductory to this statement? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—These extracts were not set out in this case, I suppose, but are only to be referred to, as well as those put in by Mr. Peters, by words of reference. Mr. Dickinson:—They were actually written out. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty,:—I think they should not encumber the case. Mr. Dickinson:—They are already in the notes, and among others this, that Sir Hibbert Tupper now asks me to read. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest3-:—The effect will be to increase the printing enormously. Mr. Dickinson:—I have not the slightest objection to reading the lines requested by Sir Hibbert Tupper. They are as follows: "Under the circumstances it is most difficult to fix the actual number of seals destroyed and not secured by hunters using fire arms; but it is a conservative estimate to say that such hunters lose two out of every three seals shot by them." The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—These extracts, Mr. Dickinson, do 3'ou want read into the notes, or simply referred to by the stenographer? Mr. Dickinson:—They are quite brief, and inasmuch as the other matter went in I would like to have these go in. The Commissioner on the part of the Her Majesty:—I think it would be ver3r cumbersome to do this. I thought all along that all these extracts, except as specially mentioned, were not to go in. I thought those were read yesterday so that we might know what was being offered, because we might reject it ultimately. Mr. Dickinson:—What my friend read from the American case did go into the stenographer's minutes, and will go into the printed matter. I therefore added my qualifying sentences, which were very brief. The Commisisoner on the part of Her Majesty:—Very well, if that is so it is different from what I understood yesterday. Mr. Peters:—I must say that from our point of view these extracts, if they are valuable at all—and they have a certain value—should go into the notes. They are not long on either side. Mr. Dickinson:—I just said to my learned friend that I would move to strike out of the notes anything but the references to these pages on both sides. The Commisisoner on the part of Her Majesty:—I have expressed my opinion, which seems, however, not to have the concurrence of anybody else, that. I did not think they were going into the notes, and did not think they ought to go in. The Commissioner on the part.of the United States:—I do not think there has been a uniform practice about it Some 10 20 40 5° Go of these e?xtracts have gone into the notes and others not. I think what went in 3*esterday was mainly by reference. Mr. Peters:—There were none read yesterday, as a matter of fact, Your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The last lot went in mainly by reference. Mr. Peters:—That was before your Honours suggested it should not be printed. What went into the notes was the earlier part. The matter was then dropped if 3'ou remember. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I think what you read from the answer of the United' States went into the notes. Mr. Peters:—And also there are some statements, or some other reports, which ought to go into the notes in any event because they are not easily gotten a The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I have no doubt it is the desire of both Commissioners that nothing should go into the notes that can possibly be kept out, that is, that can be found by reference. What do counsel prefer in this matter? Is it sufficient to refer to it in the stenographer's notes? Mr. Dickinson:—I would rather have it all go out, simply making references; but we disagree your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—My learned associate refers it to me. If either counsel desire to have these go into the notes, my own inclination would be to yield to their desire; but the general programme marked out yesterday, when it was found that we all had a copy of this American Reprint, was that whatever went in from this Reprint should be by reference. As a part of this matter has gone into the notes already, perhaps the balance had better go in, with the understanding that hereafter all references to the Reprint shall be merely by reference. Mr. Peters:—As a matter of fact it is not so easy to get copies of this Re-print as the court would think. We cannot get enough copies for all the counsel engaged here, if we are worldng at different places. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We will let the next case take care of itself. My learned associate refers it to me, and at your request I instruct the stenographer to run this into the notes. What you read from the answer of the United Slates went into the notes, did it not, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—That went into the notes as I understand. The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—Of course counsel will understand that the Commissioners desire to avoid encumbering the notes more than is absolutely necessary; but -with the consent of my learned associate we will let this go in—extracts on both sides-, exhibits and everything else—and meet the next case understandingly. Mr. Peters, I did not make an3' observation yestei*day, neither did my associate, with reference to these certificates on these charts, of which three or four were printed in yesterday's notes, because I thought possibly there might be something in them you considered valuable. Mr. Peters:—I simply read the certificate to show that it is an authentic document. 364 IO 20 30 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—In all cases of that sort is it not better to show papers to counsel on the other side and ask them if they deny their authority instead of reading the certificates. Mr. Dickinson:—Especially as we do not object on that ground at all. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—However, as these are in the record, perhaps they had better stay. Mr. Dickinson:—I now desire to offer the citizenship papers of John Andrew Bechtel, wherein he renounces his citizenship to the United States and becomes a British subject- Mr. Peters:—I would like to ask my learned friend to state what possible relevance this can have. Mr. Dickinson:—Maybe my friend will admit that he was formerly a United States citizen, and became a subject of Great Britain at this time. Mr. Peters:—I riiake no admission whatever. On this point I have nothing to admit. I make no admission, and distinctly so state; but at the present time here is a document put in which shows that at a certain date he became a subject of Great Britain. I cannot exactly see what that ■has to do with the case, at the present time at all events. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I presume Mr. Dickinson would seek to connect it afterwards with some material relevant evidence. Mr. Dickinson: for offering it. -I am perfectly willing to state my reasons 40 Mr. Peters:—If my learned friend puts this in he does so because it contains a recital that this man was formerly of the United States. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is it signed by him? Mr. Peters:—It is signed by the registrar of the court. The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—Does it purport to contain a statement by him that he was formerly a citizen of the United States. Mr. Peters:—It contains three documents, first an davit . affi- The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—Will 5° you kindly pass it to the Commissioners to save all this going into the notes. (Document passed up.) Mr. Dickinson:—I do not suppose my learned friend objects on any technical ground. He objects substantially to my showing that Bechtel was a citizen of the United States and became a subject of Great Britain. Mr. Peters:—I certainlj' will raise that objection when we come to it. This is a document purporting to show that he 60 became a subject of Great Britain, and I object to it being put in merely because there happens to be a recital in it that he was formerly of the United States. That is no evidence that he was formerly a citizen of the United States. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You object to it on the ground that it does not tend to prove that he was ever a citizen of the United States—on the ground that assuming that the United States ma3r prove that he was a 3^5 citizen of the United States, that this does not tend to prove that fact? Mr. Peters:—It is irrelevant, and as to his being a citizen of the United States that is a matter which must be proved in some other way. Mr. Peters:—It appears to me that my learned friend purposely kept away from asking the question whether or not I0 he was a citizen of the United States. Mr. Dickinson.—If is material to us to fix the date when he became a citizen of Great Britain, 3'our Honour, and the document is in the usual form with which the citizenship, or allegiance of the citizen purposing to be naturalized is recited. The country from which he comes, of which he was formerly a subject, and which he renounces in his oath, is the country named in the document. The Commissioner on the part of theUnited States:—I was 20 looking to see if there was not a renunciation. Yes; there is a general renunciation, not like our oath. I understand, Mr. Dickinson, that you expect to make it a part of your case to show to the court that it is material for you to know when he became a citizen of Great Britain. Mr. Dickinson:—Y'es, your Honour, in connection with the testimony that he was a citizen of the United States up to that time. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I 30 thought he so testified but the counsel for Great Britain say he did not. This paper has no tendency to show that he was a citizen of the United States. Mr. Dickinson:—Except the recitation, your Honour, of his former allegiane'e to the United States of America. Mr. Peters:—That is only in the Registrar's certificate, and does not state that he was a citizen or anything else. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It 4° simply states that he was a resident of the United States, not a citizen. Mr. Die-kinson:—It recites the country from which he comes but does not state the citizenship. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—He renounces allegiance to the foreign state of which he was a subject, but it nowhere states the former state of which he was a subject. 50 Go Mr. Dickinson:—-The 'British form does not, your Honour. We desire to fix the date at which he became a British subject and that is one step in our case. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—My own opinion is that you are entitled to fix that date. Mr. Peters:—We object to that document being used as any proof whatever of the correctness of the statements contained in any one of those documents. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—So far as I am concerned I do not know how my learned associate stands—I see nothing in this paper which tends to show that he was a citizen of the United States; but there may be some evidence given in connection with it. Mr. Peters:—AYe also wish to be understood at the very outset as objecting to any evidence with regard to the nationality of Mr. Bechtel. 366 i 1 10 30 40 50 60 Mr. Dickinson:—On that point we are prepared to be heard now, as otherwise we would take some time to-morrow, or next day, and if you come to that objection we propose to show he is a citizen of the United States. Mr. Peters:—I only make this objection for the purpose of fully reserving my rights in the matter. My understanding in the matter is that, this, being one of the principal points in the case, will naturally be reserved for argument after the facts in each case are fully before the Court. I only wish to be understood as reserving our rights to raise the argument of the nationality of Mr. Bechtel in this case and that of other people in other cases. From our point of view this is a matter that cannot be enquired into here at ail. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—On the face of the treaty it is a matter that may be enquired into, I think. Mr. Peters:—To elucidate that point would require a very considerable amount of argument, which we propose to give later on; so that I only wish to reserve our rights. I do not think it would be advisable to argue the question now. Especially in this case, where the matter comes up, perhaps, in a form different from any other case. The Commissioner on the part of Her -Majesty:—Of course we do not want the question argued now; it stands out upon the face of the Convention itself. That is a matter to be argued on the whole evidence. Of course the question raised now is as to the reception of particular evidence. This document fended to prove' that Mr. Bechtel was an American citizen, I think it would be relevant evidence, because Mr. Dickinson could follow it up by attempting to prove that he was the real owner of the vessel. One can see without an3r stretch of the imagination that that would be his course. As it stands, as my learned brother says, it does not appear to be any evidence of that fact. If offered merely as a proof of the time Mr, Bechtel became a British subject that in itself, of course, would be wholly immaterial, because he might have been a subject of Belgium previous to that. Under the Treaty that would be material, of course, if Mr. Dickinson was able to prove that he was an American citizen. It seems to me the best time to offer evidence like this would be when he adduced his other evidence. Still, I do not object at the present lime to this, except that it might tend to confuse, if Mr. Dickinson should be unable to supplement it with other evidence. If I were hearing the case ordinarily I think 1 should ask counsel to hold this as I have already stated. I do not object to its going in at the present time for the proof of the particular fact you refer to. You cannot put in the whole case at one time, and I would be inclined to receive it and allow you to prove it at such times as you seek to prove it. Mr. Dickinson:—I was actuated by a desire to get along withthecaseso far as I could tohjy before the Commissioners rose; but I am quite satisfied, after listening to your Honour, that it might possibly encumber the record, and had better go in later. I thought possibly my friend proposed to argue the objection now. Mr. Peters:—I simply desired nn' rights reserved. Mr. Dickinson:—I suppose the colloquy with reference to this paper might as well go out of the notes. The Commissioner on the part of ihe United States:—It strikes me thai Ihe discusison is very valuable. I do not think you have wasfe>d time, Mr. Dickinson. I think the status of the paper is settled, and the status of the question. 367 M mi "ITii'i 11——1« Paper withdrawn. Mr. Dickinson:—I now desire to offer the letter of John Tilton, Deputy Minister of Fisheries, to Mr. Munsie, volume 5 of the British case, page 104. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you desire this to go into the notes? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, your Honour, and the letter is as 10 follows: "Ottawa, July 26th, 1887. Dear Sirs: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th. instant, addressed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in which you state: "We have not received a single word from the United States Government about the release of the vessels, referring, of course, to those seized last season. "On the 2nd April last I communicated to you the decision 20 of the President of the United States, in so far as releasing the vessels, etc., which letter you acknowledged. "Have you made any application for the surrender of the vessels, or have you reason to suppose the United States Government would communicate the action to you by other means than the ordinary official channel? "This department lost no time in communicating the decision in question to you, with the expectation that you would at once take steps to regain possession of the vessels. "I am, etc., (Signed.) JOHN TILTON. "Deputy Minister of Fisheries." 30 40 Mr. Dickinson:—The point I especially call attention to is that on the 2nd of April last, 1887, he advised him of the order of the President as to releasing the vessels, and states that Munsie acknowledged the letter. The Commissioners will see that we have got through some preliminary work which would have taken us just so much time to-morrow, and at this time, if agreeable to the Commissioners and to the learned counsel, I would be glad to have the Commissioners rise. The Commissioners then rose. 5° Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 11, 1896. At 10.30 the Commissioners took their seats. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The third rule provides that the counsel for Her Majesty shall elect Go within 24 hours after the filing of the answer whether they will make a final reply or not. That time has elapsed in all the cases, I believe. And it also provides that within 24 hours after the filing of the answer counsel for Her Majesty shall have an entry made and adopted as to the order in which the cases shall be presented. The time under that rule having elapsed, I presume all has been clone that was intended to be done; and it is to be assumed that if no reply has been put in none is intended to be; and that (he cases are, <63 therefore, in proper condition to be heard iu their order. That is what we think, Mr. Peters, unless, perhaps, you might to- diiy, if 3'ou have not so understood, make such election and such entry. Mr. Peters:—My learned friend, Mr. Dickinson, and I agree that it will really cause no practical inconvenience to either side to put them in as quickly as we can get them ready, and that the mere question of the 24 hours should not be looked 10 upon strictly between us. Nearly all the replies are in, I believe; all except two, which will be ready to-day. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We want to know where we stand. Mr. Peters:—They are all in but two, and those will be in to-day or to-morrow. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—How would it do for 3'ou, as my associate suggests, to have your election determined by Monday, at all events, and your reply 20 filed, if you intend to file any. Mr. Peters:—That will be quite sufficient. Mr. Dickinson:—We have agreed in two or three matters that we would neither of us take any advantage of the rule— the case of the Wanderer and one or two others. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How much time do you want in which to file your answers, Mr. Dickinson? 30 40 50 60 Mr. Dickinson:—Oh, by Monday morning, sir. Of course the question of the printer is an unknown quantity. He is busy with the records of the Commissioner^, and we have had difficulty on both sides in having our printing done promptly within the rule. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—We will understand, then, that in all ca^es in which the answer is in, the reply shall be filed on or before Monday next; or, if the co1 ns.l for Her Majes'v elect- nut to put in any repty, the case will then be ready to be taken up in its course, and the other cases, I think, may stand until further referred to; some, time next week we will draw attention to the matter again. Mr. Peters:—Of course it is understood that in the case on trial the reply is in. The only cases where replies are not in arc the three cases the names of which I have forgotten —the last three—and they will be in within the time indicated this morning. Mr. Dickinson:—My learned friend has given me a memorandum of what he proposes to introduce from the American case, and of course I would like to understand before he closes his case just what comes in—before we open—and upon that point I call your Honours' attention to the fact that among these are a large number of affidavits offered—two sheets—that are attached to the appendix of the case of the United States—in that appendix. In some cases they offer paragraphs in such affidavits, and in some cases only sentences from affidavits. The paragraph, for instance, from the affidavit of Morris Moss, on the "San Diego;" paragraph on the Pribyloff islands, in the North Pacific Ocean. Some of these affidavits are very voluminous. Now, on the subject of the introduction of affidavits, I desire to say that at the time the argument was had on the introduction of the Douglas affidavit, which was the first one proposed to be offered by my friend, he offered it because it was in the United States case or in the record at Sitka. My friend stated that this class of testimony was only one witness, and that, from the intimations of the Commissioners, is only admitted because of that statement, as I understood it at the time, and because the objection seemed to make some impression on the Court, that the statement of a witness in the trial of a case in which the United States is a party did not bind the United States. If it did make any impression on the Court, much more impression should be made when it is proposed to read affidavits that were filed before the Paris io Tribunal, as binding upon the United States upon a hearing before this High Commission. Much more impression should ' be made when it is proposed to read but paragraphs of such affidavits. I shall not take the time now to argue the question, because I have done so heretofore, and the Court has expressed itself upon the subject; but it is. necessary for us to know what my friends put in with the permission of the Court. Mr. Peters:—Under those circumstances, I imagine the 20 most convenient way would be for me to state the exact paragraphs I do propose to put in. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I was hoping we had gotten through with all this; that the rule laid own by my learned associate the other day covered the whole of it. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The references that you have made in'your list really indicate what vou deem material to your case. 30 Mr. Dickinson: accuratelv. -Well, it paragraphs it, or pages it, pretty The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—What I intended to express the other day was that any serious objection made by counsel on a point should be given weight to, and that the evidence that was sought to be brought in should be received subject to arguments of the respective counsel. Therefore anything that Mr. Peters thinks 40 is material to his case with reference to this matter should go in by words of reference, and anything that Mr. Dickinson thinks necessary in the way of qualification should also go in in the same way. 5o Go Mr. Dickinson:—I desire to record, however, inasmuch as we are making history here, and it is to be printed, my protest against the admission of this testimony by putting it upon the record as suitable authentic testimony, to say nothing of the ordinary rules of law. Mr. Peters:—In order to shorten the matter, I have given my learned friend a statement of the references—parts of the different books I wish to read. And in order to shorten the matter I will, with the permission of the Commissioners, have typewritten the complete extracts that I wish to put in, giving my learned friend a copy and filing a cop3r. The Commissioner on the part of the. United States:—Have you not the references there to the American reprint? Mr. Peters:—I have the references; yes, your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I have conferred with my learned associate about the matter, and we desire, so far as possible ,to avoid putting into the record what can be found in the American reprint by reference. Of course, in any case wheu-e counsel really desire that matter should go into the record, we of course would consent. But if vou have the reference there, is not that sufficient ? m 370 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It may be the references may be numerous, and that Mr. Dickinson has not had the opportunity of going over the passages to which you refer. Mr. Peters:—The quotations, as a rule, are not long; in fact, they are short. My learned friend has already got taken down on the notes the full references he made to the American case, to which I have no objection. io The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—On the other hand, you asked it. to go in, Mr. Peters. Mr. Peters:—I did not object to its going in at all. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You asked that it should go in, and it was at your request I directed the stenographer to put it in. Now what you have got is short, perhaps, but Mr. Dickinson is entitled to put into the notes as much as he sees fit of the same paper. If we knew we were going to stop with short extracts, well and 20 good. I say to you as counsel and as a friend of the Commission, not as a ruling or instruction, that the Commissioners have conferred, and they desire, as far as practicable, that whatever is in the American reprint shall go into the recor I only by reference. Where counsel really desire anything in the record, if it is important, it should be read info the record; and of course we will yield to the desire of counsel. 1 do not see that I can say anything more. Mr. Peters:—Under these circumstances I will do this: I ,0 will take the references as I have them now so that they will clearly identify the record I wish to refer to, and then I will put that in. Mr. Dickinson:—Now there is another character of testi- ■ mony that has not been before referred to, and that is on the second page of the notes that have been handed to me by my learned friend, being extracts from reports of committees in Congress, not in the American case at all. They find in various documents the reports of committees, and desire to put in certain Gontents of such reports. Of course no report 4° of a committee of Congress has been adopted by the Government of the United States, and has not been adopted in the controversy with Great Britain. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It would clearly seem to me, Mr. Peters, that the mere report of a committee would not be admissible. Mr. Peters:—If the Commissioners will allow me, I am not attempting to put in the report of a committee; I am attempting to put in the statement of Captain L. G. Sheppard, who 5° was the seizing officer, and the captain of the Rush, which was emplo3'ed as a cruiser in these very waters in the year 1887; and I am giving there his sworn statement, not an affidavit at all, given apparently on a viva voce examination, generally with regard to the conelition of the seal fishery in the 3year in which he was actually there. It is not the report of a committee, in conclusion, that I put in at all. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—This, as I am informed, is the testimony given by that officer before a 6o commit lee, and not a report by him to the Executive Department? Mr. Petet's:—It is his testimony taken before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest37:—It will barellv be said thai that was in performance of his duty as derived from the Executive authority of the United States, 10 20 30 40 5o Go Mr. Peters:—I will not insist on that. Mr. Dickinson:-—On either? The 54th Congress, document 137, part 2, you have cited the report of C. H. Townsend. Mr. Peters:—That was the actual report of an officer of the Government, and I think is authentic testimony. It is the report of the Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries to his government. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Well, so far as.I am concerned, if that is a report to the Executive Department, if might perhaps have some bearing upon the matter. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Let me understand a little more exactly what it is. Mr. Peters:—It is the report of C. H. Townsend, Assistant Commissioner of Fisheries. The Commissioner on the part of the United States :-*— Made to whom? Mr. Dickinson:—It is cited here as a report of the 54th Congress, .Vol. 137, part 2. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How can that affect us here? Mr. Peters:—It was made during the season of 1894 to the Secretary of the Treasury at Washington. It was his official duty to make this repetft, and we wish to cite a short passage from it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— I am frank to say that 1 think as between these governments that the report of an executive officer made in pursuance of his duty to his superiors, is admissible evidence as far as relevant; but I would not get any light from anything reported in 1894. Mr. Peters:—Another part I wish to refer to are some tables (which Mr. Peters reads). The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—He was not a hydrographic officer, was he? Mr. Peters:—All I know is he was an agent appointed by the United States Government to make an investigation of this matter and report under the statute of 1893. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It would not affect my mind a hair's breadth, and it would tend to bury us with papers. Of course, if my associate thinks he could get any light from it that is another thing. The Commissioner on the "part of Her Majesty:—I do not' think it would be worth while to receive it. Mr. Dickinson:—Then, to close the subje>ct, if the Commissioners please, without stopping now to read all the papers, paragraphs from which are cited, we claim the right to refer to any paragraph of an affidavit, or all of it, in accordance with the rule that where one party uses a written document belonging to the other—and only on that rule can it be considered admissible for a moment—the party whose document is used is entitled to use any part of it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We practically ruled on that, Mr. Dickinson, in connection with the answer of the United States—the application of it. Mr. Peters:—One thing I wish to bring to the notice of the Commission, and that is in regard to the evidence of Mr. 372 (John Cotsford—Direct.) Marketich. We, of course, understand that this evidence is taken in the "Carolena" case, and also in his own case, but referring to page 86 of the notes it might be argued that Mr. Marketich's evidence was not to be looked at in the "Carolena" case at all, because on that page, for some reason unknown, a new heading is made, as it were, at the end of his evidence, by stating "Claim No. 1, the "Carolena," as if what had gone before did not apply to the "Carolena." The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Did you look at your remark at the close? Mr. Peters:—I see what it is based on. But there is no doubt that Mr. Marketich's evidence was intended for the whole case, as will be seen on reference to the manner in which it was introduced. The Commissioner on the part of the United States: do you say to that, Mr. Dickinson? -What Mr. Dickinson:—I say they may read it in in the "Onward" case and in the "Carolena" case. When Mr. Munsie was on the stand, if the Court please, he stated that among the hunters he could not find was John Cotsford; that he believed he was in Seattle; that he had made efforts to get him, but had failed. We at once emeleav- ored to find Mr. Cotsford. My friend said yesterday that he had closed his case with the exception of Mr. Cotsford. We got him here yesterday and we now produce him in court 3° for my friend, and prefer that, he would close his case before we open. Mr. Peters:—Mr. Cotsford arrived here yeterday, I believe, but I have not seen him, nor have we been able to see him. I understand that he may have been seen by my learned friend or some person on his behalf. Without seeing him, and not knowing he was here, and not being able to see him or find him, I certainly do not think I can be called on to produce the witness without having time to talk to him. Mr. Bodwell:—I just sent for Mr. Cotsford and he said he could not leave to see me, because he was paid to stay here by the agent of the United States Government. Mr. Dickinson:—There is not a particle of doubt about that. We found him; we could not get him away from his work without paying him to come here. Mr. Bodwell:—I intended to say that he could not leave because he was here at the Legislative Assembly building. Mr. Peters:—I will see Mr. Cotsford as soon as I can. Mr. Dickinson:—I will call Mr. Cotsford; that will give you a chance to put in anything you want upon cross-examination. John Cotsford called as a witness on the part of the United States and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Mr. Cotsford, where do you live? A.—I have been living the last three months in Seattle. Q.—Where did you live before that? A.—In Victoria. Q.—How long had you lived in Victoria? A.—Off and on the last thirty years. Q.—When were you asked to come here by anyone on behalf of the United States? A.—1 think it was last Tuesday. IO 20 3° 40 50 Go 373 (John Cotsford—Direct.) Q.—That is the first you had seen of anyone on behalf of the United States? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did they find where you were at work? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And asked you to come over here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And 3'ou consented? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Your family is here , is it not? A.—All my folks are here. Q.—They knew where you were all this time? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And knew where you were at work, didn't they? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And they have lived here for the last thirty years? A.—Thej' have lived here for the last forty years or more. Q.—Do you keep house here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And your wife was here? A.—No, sir; I have none. Q.—What is your family? A.—Mother and sisters and step-brothers. Q.—You have lived in that house for how long? A.—The last four years. Q.—They knew where you were at work at Seattle? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And what business you were in? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were sealing, I think, on one of the sealing vesels sometime in 1886? A.—1 went first on the "Carolena," 1 think it was '86. Q.—What was your business then? A.—Boiler-maker. Q.—Had you ever been out sealing before? A.—No, sir. Q.—Yrou had had no experience in seal hunting then? A.—No, sir. . Q.—Who employed you or asked you to go? A.—Mr. Munsie was the first, at least Ned Shields was the first, then Mr. Munsie. Q.—And did you agree to go? A.-ssNot at first, I did not. Q.:—How were you employed and prevailed on to go? A.— By Ned Shidd's persuasion I at last consented to go. Q.—And to whom did you state that you would go? A.— To Mr. Munsie and to Mr. Bechtel. Q.—Did they both come to your shop together to employ you? Mr. Peters:—Now, I really think that that is a little- Mr. Dickinson:—I am going to make this examination unless I am stopped. Q.—Who was present when you finally agreed to go and when you were emploved to go? A.—Mr. Munsie and Mr. Bechtel, Q.—At your shop? A.—At the shop where I was working. Q.—Did they come together? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What time was this? A.—I could not say whether it was in the forenoon or the afternoon. Q.—What month? A.—The month of May. Q.—1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And.that place was Robinson's blacksmith shop, cqipo- site the Telegraph Hotel? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—At that interveiew did Mr. Bechtel have anything to sayv A.—I don't know as there was much said by Mr. Bechtel, because Mr. Munsie did the most of the talking. Q.— Put he talked about it, did he? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And he was there throughout the arrangement? A.— He was there when I agreed to go finally. Q.—At that conversation was the lay which you were to receive arranged? A.—The lay was spoken of then, but it was spoken of before that. Q.- What would you charge if you went? A.—What they would giWme. 374 io 20 40 5o 60 (John Cotsford—Direct.) Q.—You did not go out on the "Carolena" in February? A.—No. sir. Q.—You are positive it was in May? A.—In May. Q.—Did you understand from either of these gentlemen or from Mr. Munsie that the "Carolena" had be*en out on .the spring, trip? A.—No, sir, but I believe she was out in the spring. Q.—Had she been out that year, whether you knew it from Munsie or not, and brought home seal skins? A.—That I could not say positively, because I was not interested in any form or shape. Q.—Did you go down with your brother to take some skins from the "Carolena before you went on her? A.—I did, whether that year or the year before I know not; at least I cannot say positively. Q.—Was she sealing in 1885? A.—I don't know whether it was the spring of 1885 or 1886 we went down for the skins. Q.—Now, when you left for the coast, how many hunters were on board? A.—Four. Q.—Give their names. A.—Ned Shields, Joe Dupont, Mc- Conahay and J. Cotsford. Q.—What guns did you have? A.—We had a rifle apiece and four new shot guns. Q.—Who owned your riftos? A.—We owned them ourselves. Q.—Did you own your own? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And what kind of shotguns were they? A.—They were Bonehill make. Q.—Are you familiar with shotguns? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were they new? A.—Brand new. Q.—Was each one furnished with a shotgun by the owners? A.—By the owners. Q.—What was the value of those shotguns? A.—I don't know. Qr—You don't know what they were selling for at the time? gpS-No, sir. Q.—Who bought the ammunition for your rifles? A.—I believe Mr, Munsie bought the most of it, but I bought a few shells to use as I saw fit. Q.—Were there any cano.es on the "Carolena" when she left here on that sealing trip? A.—Nohe. Q.—And when you left you did not come back here again before the schooner was seized? A.—No, sir. Q.—Can you fix the date that you sailed? A.—No, sir, I can't, but we arri ved off Unimak Pass, I think, on the 13th of June. We were about three days off Senick. We were about ten days going to Senick, or in sight of Unimak Mountain. Q.—Now then, did 3'ou stop anywhere between here and Behring Sea? A.—We stoped at Clayoquot. Q.—What did you do at Clayoquot? A.—Got the canoes. Q.—What was done about gettiug canoes? A.—Getting them, that is all, from the Indians. Q.—Did you buy them from them? A.—They were bought there and paid for, I believe. Q.—Did you have anything to do with the selection of the canoes? A.—Only the one T. used myself. Q.—What have you to say about that? Was that one of the be>st? A..—It suited me the best; I thought I would like it the best. Q.—Did 3ron make any condition that you would have that canoe or you Would not go, or something like that? A.—I believe they objected to it on account of its costing a little 375 io 20 30 40 spring' down. A. 50 Go (John Cotsford—Direct.) more than the others, anel I said they could get somebody else. Q.—Whom did you tell this to? A.—Mr. Bechtd. Q— Was Mr. Bechtel at that trading post that —He left here on the schooner with us and went Q.—On what schooner? A.—The "Carolena." Q.—Mr. John A. Bechtel, or Andrew Bechtel, otherwise called? A.—Andrew Bechtel. Q.^He started on the sealing voyage? A.—He left hereon the "Carolena and went to Clayoquot with us. Q-—You knew him pretty well, did you? A.—Yes, sir, I knew him pretty well. I had been acquainted with him a year or two before that. Q.—Was he carried off on the "Carolena" by mistake or against his will? A.—I think not. Q— He did not say goodbye to Captain Ogilvie before he carried him away, did he? Y'ou did not hear anything about his coming on board to say goodbye? A.—No. Q.—Well, who engaged in the purchase of canoes at Clayoquot? A.—Mr. Bechtel did the most of it. Q.—You had about the best canoe in the lot, didn't you? A.—I had the largest, and I suppose considered a little the best. Q.—How much did it cost? A.—Eleven dollars, I believe; that is what I understood the price that was paid for her. Q.—And you had some talk with Bechtel; he did not want to buy her because she cost so much? A.—Somebody objected to the price; he thought a smaller one would do, but I preferred it. Q.—And the price fixed that he thought was too much was $11, was it? A.—There was something about the price why the objection was made to it. Q.—Are you familiar with canoes?. A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What experience have you had with eanoes? A.— Well, I have turned over several times jn ttfem. - Q.—Tell us about your having any experience with these Indian canoes here? A.—Another time I was taking a trip around the west coast of Vancouver Island; spent several months in one. Q.—They are well known here, are they not, these canoes that are used on the coast? £ A.—I can handle one pretty well. Q.—They are well known here? A.—They are well known here, yes. Q.—So that you were familiar with the different kinds of Indian canoes in 1886, were you? A.—Well, I had been around the harbor here previous to that and went around the Island. . Q.—There were four canoes bought there, were there, at Clayoquot? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And they were the best quality? A.—Well, they were very good; they suited us. Q.—Were they of the largest kind? A.—No, sir. Q.—What was their size? A.—Well, I could not give you the size; there was no two of them the same size; a little difference in size the four of them; but they were of the size suitable for sealing purposes. Q.—What was the value of those canoes other than the one that you had? A.—I would put them down from ten to fifteen dollars. Q.—That is a fair valuation? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, were not those canoes brought back iere and steamed ribs put in them here in Yictoria? A.—No, sir. Q.—Before you went up to Behring Sea ? A.—No, sir, they were not brought here at all. B ■w 376 (John Cotsford—Direct.) Q.—They were put on your ship and they were seized with her, and never came back here, did they? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—They did not come back here, did they? A.—No. si.'. Q.—Who attended to the fitting out of those canoes up there? A.—Ned Shields done the most of it, and Mr. Bechtei was the principal one helping him. Q.—And what was done with the canoes? A.—Ribs was 10 put in to hold them together. Q.—Who attended to the steaming of the ribs? A.—I think they were put in without steaming, so far as I can remember; I remember there was no steaming done. I wasn't there all the time while the ribs was going in; I seen them start on them. Q.—In this business up there, or in the business for the Carolena on this trip, will you please state who the men were considered managing owners? A.—Mr. Munsie and Mr. Bechtel . 20 Mr. Peters:—Wait a moment; I submit that a mere employee on a ship is not a proper person to prove that by; it assumes something; in the first place it assumes that he was owner. It is proved here already, I think, that Mr. Munsie was owner; but to ask a mere employee who was the owner of the ship surely cannot be done. If there were two owners it would be on the register; and if there was a managing owner it would be on the register. ,0 Mr. Dickinson:—We think this is suitable authentic testimony, may it please your Honours, to show who the employees were looking up to on the whole trip, in connection with the other testimony. The Commisioner on the part of Her Majesty:—You can give evidence as to what he did, _Mr. Dickinson, from which the conclusion might be drawn, but you cannot, I think, ask that question. "^'flT ~\t\ The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—What 40 was done or said—what took place. Mr. Peters maelc an objection that it must appear in the papers of the vessel. That is another proposition entirely. Mr. Dickinson:—I quite understand the objection and the ruling. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not think the Commissioners intend to give effect Io that objection, at the present at any rate, if they do at all. That is a broader objection than the one we are considering. Q.—How were these ribs put in? A.—Bent and nailed in. ej —At the time of the dealing for the canoes, was Captain Ogilvie with Bechtel? A.—No, sir. Q.—Where was he? A.—Aboard the vessel; at least he wasn't around at the time they were dickering for the canoes. Q.—Now, did you see a man there called Indian Jimmy? A.—He might have been there, but I don't know. Q.—You were not acquainted with him particularly? A.— No, sir. 60 Q-—Do you know Indian Jimmy? A.—Not by name; I may know him by sight. Q.—You went through what pass? A.—Unimak Pass. Q.—When did you commence sealing? A.—We started hunting for seals shortly after we got in. Q.—When did you commence taking seals? you-got in on (he 13th of June? A.—I think from the first of August— from the 1st of July I should have said. 50 IQ 20 30 Go (John Cotsford—Direct. Q.—Where abouts were you then in the Sea? A.—Somewhere around the islands, St. George and St. Paul. Q.—What kind of a month did you have in July? A.—The fairest month we have had any season I have been up there, since. Q.—And you have been up there how many seasons since? A.—Three. Q.—And you hunted with canoes since? A.—No, sir. Q.—Always in boats? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many men went out in these canoes? A.—Two. Q.—One to handle the canoe and the other to shoot ? A.— Bo+h handled the canoe at either end; the hunter was rowing and the other man was paddling and steering. Q.—Do you know anything about what the time Capt. Ogle- vie, or did you hear anything about the time he was preparing to leave the Sea? A.—Somewhere about the 20th or 23rd of August, I believe. Q.—Did you hear that from the Captain? A.—That is about the time it was understood we would start to go home. I think we got it from the captain. Q.—What makes you remember the time that he talked of leaving the Sea? A.—I suppose on account of talking years afterwards about what time we started for home. Q.—Did you hear anything said about the provisions on board? A.—There was a remark passed that if we stayed to that time we were liable to be short of provisions going home; who started the yarn I don't know; but it started aboard by some one. Q.—Did you have any barrels of flour on that ship? A.— No, sir, not that I know of. Q.—Were vou on her when she was seized? . A..—The schooner? Q.—Y'es. A.—I was away from the schooner, out in a canoe. Q.—You came back long before anything was taken from her? A.—As far as T know of, yes. Q.—Do you know anything about what sacks of flour were 4° seized? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you see the flour when it was taken off? A.—I paid no attention; I didn't see any taken off. Q.—Who did you hear say anything about you would be short of provisions if j'ou left on the 23rd of August? A.— It was a remark that passed aboard; who it came from I don't know. ! |<M#/ Q.—The cook? A.—He may have started it; I don't know who it was started it; it was a common report about amongst us. Q.—After you were seized, what was done with you personally? A.—The only restraint put on me was after we got into Ounalaska harbour, we was told only half the crew could go ashore. And when they came aboard the other half could go ashore. Q.—Did you all go ashore if you pleased? A.—Half went ashore, and after dinner we all went ashore. Q.—Did any one interfere with vour going ashore after that? A.—No. sir. Q.—Or coming back? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did what you liked? A.—Pretty near. Q.—And how long were you at Ounalaska? A.—Might have been there a week or ten days I could not say positive. Q.—Then where did you go? A.—They put us aboard the steamer "St. Paul" and sent us to San Francisco. Q.—How many of you? A.—Nine of us. Q.—Can you remember the names? A.—I think so (John Cotsford—Direct.) Q.—Just give them to us. A.—Ned. Shields, Joe. Dupont, McConahay, Dave Russell, William Knox, William Munsie, Walter Tennyson, J. Cotsford; the cook's name was John Mc- Carter, I think. Q.—How long were you in San Francisco? A.—I think I was there about a week; somewhere around, ejr seven days; I couldn't say for certain. Q-—Where did you stay? A.—I think I roomed with a party I was there with when I was working at San Francisco, and boarded at Montgomery's Hotel. Q-—Who paid your board? A.—I paid it. Q.—Has any one ever advanced you any money for it? A. —No, sir. Q-—And when did you come to Victoria? A.—Come up on the steamer. Q.—What steamer? A.—I forget the name of the steamer. Q.—What line? A.—The Pacific Coast Steamship Company's steamer. Q.—And who paid your fare? A.—I paid my own fare. Q.—You had money, had you? A.—I borrowed money at San Francisco. Q.—Did any one ever pay it back to you? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you pay any one else's fare? A—I paid the cook's fare, and also a man on the "Thornton." For the man on the "Thornton" I gave the purser my watch as security until we got to Victoria. Q.—Did you ever receive from any one the money that you paid for the cook? A.—No, sir. Q.—Never received it from anybody? . A.—No, sir. Q.—Mr. Munsie never paid your fare back? A.—No, sir. Q.—Now, you caught some seals up there in Behring Sea on that trip on the "Carolena" before you were seized? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember how many? A.—I don't know, 640 odd or 860 odd. Q.—Did you catch any on the coast going up? A.—No, sir. Q.—And what was your lay? A.—$1.50 per skin. Q.—Did you get paid? A.—I got paid for what skins I delivered aboarel the schooner. Q.—Who by? A.--Mr. Munsie. Q.—How much? A.—I forget about what number of skins I had. Q.—Did you keep any memorandum of it? A.—I have a memorandum at home, I believe, of the number of skins I can soon hunt it up and bring it over. Q.—One more question about canoes. Are these canoes all bought of one party, or several. A.—They are bought from different parties. Q.—Y'ou were on shore in the purchase of canoes, were you? A.—Yes, sir. Q_When Bechtel was along? A.—When Bechtel was along. q.—while you were in the harbowr at Ounalaska, was any 60 restraint put upon Captain Ogilvie, or the mate, Mr. Blake any more than on the rest of you? A.—I heard of no more. Q.—They went ashore when the3'. pleased, and oame back when they pleased? A.—I believe so. Q.—No interference with them? A.—No interference; the captain went ashore, he wasn't ashore long; he stayed aboard the vessed the most of the time. Q.—Did you see any shingles in the seams of that ship? A. —No, sir. IO 20 30 40 (John Cotsford—Direct.) q.—What ballast did she carry? A.—I don't know what ballast she caried; it was under foot so I didn't see it. Q.—Did you see any lumber in the ship? A.—Only for the salt bins, er something like that! there was no lumber to speak of, that I know of, on board. Q.—How much pilot bread did you have in that ship, did vou have as many as forty boxes? A.—I don't think we did. Q.—What amount of pilot bread do you think you did have there? A.—I suppose we had about five or six boxes. Q.—Will you state whether Ogilvie was ill before you got to Ounalaska? A.—I heard nothing of him being ill until we got in there, and he spoke of seeing the doctor and getting some medicine from him. Q.—What ships did you see in Behring Sea in 1886 up to the time you were seized? A-—We wewe hunting in company with the "Thornton. Q.—Any other? A.—There was other schooners around, but I forget which ones they were. Q.—Was the Onward near you? A.—Well, we run across the Onward towards morning, or midnight, when the cutter had us in tow. Q.—That was early in July that you were sealing there with the "Thornton?" A.—That was late in July shortly before we were seized. Q.—Do you remember of speaking the "Favourite?" A.—I believe the "Favourite" was spoke, but I was in my bunk when she was spoken. The schooner's headway stopping woke me up; we heard afterwards it was the "Favourite," but at that time I didn't know what schooner it was. Q.—What did you go out in, in 1887? A.—Went out in the schoner "Favourite." Q.—And what in 1888? A.—Went out in the schoner "Halcyon," I think, in 1888, called the "Viva" now. Q.—And in 1889? A.—In 1889 I went out in the Allie 1. Alger. Q.—And you sailed in 1891 and 1892? A.—I was in the "Allie I. Alger" in the fall of one year, and the next year in the "Sea Lion." Q.—And down to what time did you seal every season? A. I have been rather unfortunate in sealing; I hardly have had three full seasons since I have been sealing. Q.—But you did go out every year after 1886 for awhile? A.—I went out for ten years altogether; 1886 was the first year. Q. Do 3'ou think that in Behring Sea there is any place or number of places where you can go as a sure thing and get 5° seals every ye^ar? A.—I don't think there is any sure place. Q.—Something has been said about your being, paid by the United States. What has been said to you in regard to coming over here? A.—I was asked if I could come over, and the answer I gave was I didn't know whether I could come or not. I was asked if my expenses were paid and my wages were paid if I would come then. 60 Mr. Peters go in. -I don't think this is a matter that ought to -I think so, after the statement of Mr, Mr. Dickinson: Spring. Mr. Peters:—I really think it is hardly necesary to put in the notes of this Commission any question as to whether a witness gets paid to come or not, because it is clearly apparent to the Commission and to counsel on both sides that witnesses at a distance cannot be brought here without being m 380 (John Cotsford—Direct—Cross.) paid; they must be paid for their trouble and their time. It might be possible, under extraordinary circumstances, if one wishes to discredit a witness, and show that he was paid a large sum, to cross-examine him about it, but here in the first instance, what can it have to do? Mr. Dickinson:—Nothing, except the statement made by counsel on the other side that the witness stated he was paid 10 by the United States, and he could not see him. Mr. Peters:—That statement was fully explained, that he simply said he was subpoenaed, was here, and could not leave. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not think it is of the slightest consequence one way or the other. Mr. Dickinson:—With all due deference, may it please the Commissioners, I shall not permit the statement to be made 20 that this witness said he was paid by the United States and could not be seen by the counsel on the other side. Mr. Peters:—Such a statement was never intended to be made by us, nor can any such meaning I think fairly be taken as to what was said. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Against that, Mr. Dickinson, your own statement is sufficient without the statement of the witness. 30 Cross-examination by Mr. Peters O.—Now Mr. Cotsford you began sealing in the year 1886? A.—Yes, sir, that was my first year sealing. Q.—At that time did you own a rifle? A.—No, sir. Q.—What had you been doing before that? A.—Boiler- making and rowing. Q.—Anything else? A.—Nothing more that I know of. Q.—Did you ever elo any shooting before that? A.—Lots of it, for ducks and grouse. Q.—Anything else? A.—No, I don't think I ever shot a 4° deer before I went sealing. Q.—You shot ducks and grouse with a shot gun, of course? A.—Shot gun and rifle. Q.—Did you ever shoot a grouse with a rifle? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—At what distance, pray,- before 1886? A.—I think about as fine a shot I ever made with a rifle was off Beechy Bay there in the Straits, a little white diver was off about 60. yiards, and I cut his head off with a rifle bullet; I have shot ducks fl3T.ng with a rifle; and also up in Nanaimo out of seven shots I killed five brant. Q.—When was this? A.—Before I went sealing. Q.—So I may say 3'ou were a pretty fair shot? A.—I was passable. I was good with a shot gun. Q.—You would be rather a dangerous man, either to a seal or to any enemy, I should think? A.—I think not. Q.—So that you did not go out sealing altogether unaccustomed to gunning? A.—No, sir. Q.—And when Ned Shields asked you to go with him as he 60 did, he did so because he knew you were a good man, was that not it? A.—Partly that, I believe, and partly as a companion, we were well acquainted as boys together. Q.—Ned Shields knew about your shooting capacity did he not? A.—I think so. Q.—Ned Shields was a pretty good shot himself was he not? A.—A very good shot. Q. Do you think it nearly as difficult to shoot a seal asleep on the water, as to shoot a gull flying with a rifle; which do 50 IO 20 30 38l (John Cotsford—Cross.) you think would be the harder? A.—I think about the same on the water, because you have the double motion, the bird is flying, and the boat is in motion, but I think the bird would be the hardest of the two, at least, I am not so well accustomed to shooting birds as I am seals. Therefore, I think birds would be the hardest of the two. Q.—As a matter of fact did you find much difficulty shooting seals? A.—No, sir. Q.—Somebod3- said here the other day that you were looked upon as a pretty good hunter; do you think they were wrong? A.—I don't think they were. Q.—As a matter of fact, will you allow any person to say that he is a better hunter than you are? A.—There is not only as good, but there is a better. Q.—Do you know any better hunter than yourself? A.— At the present time, I daresay, you will find several better chaps than I am. Mr. Dickinson:—The witness is modest, he is one of the best shots in Victoria. Witness:—In that case I would rather he would prove it first. Q.—I believe Ned Shields was a good shot, was he not? A.—Yres, sir. Q.—You had Joe. Dupont, do you know him? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What sort of a shot was he? A.—Joe. Dupont was a very good shot. Q.—And McConahey, the other hunter? A.—He was a good shot but it troubled him in the canoe on account of being so tall. Q.—So far as the canoe was concerned that did not trouble you at all, did it? A.—No, sir. Q..—-Y'ou were just as much at home in a canoe as anywhere else? A.—On the water, yes,, sir. Q.—I believe you have been accustomed to most all kinds of small craft, racing craft, light rowing boats, and canoes of 40 all kinds, is not that true? A.—Anything, that will, float on the water. Q.—Now Shields was about the same, was he not? A.— I think so. Q.—And Dupont was about the same was he not? A.— Not as handy as Ned. was in a canoe, but he seemed to be . quite at home in a canoe for all that. Q.—And McConahey, you say, is not quite as good in a canoe as you other men? A.—No, he said he didn't like them. Q.—He was a good shot, I believe? A.—He was a good shot on land. Q.—And a good hunter? A.—Well, if a man is not accustomed to a boat or canoe it is a ticklish thing, and a man can't handle a gun very well. Q.—Now in 1886 you went out with this vessel with the different parties, and your vessel was seized? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I want you to tell me what time of day your vessel was seized? A.—I believe it was some time in the afternoon. Q.—Can you tell me an3'where near the time? A.—The days up there were very long at that time, we were out sometimes very early in the morning, just about daylight, and would stay out till dark. Q.—Were you out when she was seized? A.—Yes, out in a' canoe. Q.—Could 3'ou see the seizure actually taking place? A. I—We glanced towards the vessel every once in a while, a so Go 3S2 10 30 (John Cotsford—Cre>ss.) half hour or an hour to get our bearings, or see how far we were getting away. When the cutter was alongside we see there was something wrong there off in that direction by the compass, and after pulling awhile we see some large vessel close to where the "Carolena" ought to be, as well as smoke. We started then to work back towards her. I believe I was the last one aboard that day. Q.—In going out sealing do you lower more than once a day? A.—If it is fine we stay out all day. - Q.—Y'ou do not come back in the middle of the day? A.— Not unless we are forced back by the weather. Q.—Do you know whether you had been out long before the seizure took place that day? A.—I think we had been out about all da3-; it was well along in the afternoon when we were seized, I canot tell you the time. Q.—Now after you were seized, are you positive it was not before twelve o'clock in the day? A.—I think it was well 20 on in the afternoon. Q.—What makes you think so? A.—I have an idea it-was getting on towards dark when I handed my rifle and shot gun aboard the cutter. Q.—How long was it after you saw the steamer before you got on board your ship, what distance were you off? A.— I suppose I was somewhere about eight miles away. Q.—It appears you took out a rifle and a shot gun with you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you always carry both? A.—I think I always carried both, unless' it was very wet, to save the trouble of cleaning it I would leave it aboard. Q.—Leave your rifle aboard? A.—Leave the rifle aboard. Q.—You used the shot gun in preference to the rifle, did you, at close quarters? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was there an advantage in having the rifle? A.—One advantage with a rifle, the way you point it the bullet goes, and the shot gun scatters. Q.—I believe that is the case with all shot guns where buckshot is used? A.—Some shoot a great deal closer than 40 others. Q.—Now having been seized, you were taken in tow, were you? A.—We were taken in tow. Q.—And you went to Ounalaska? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember what time you reached Ounalaska? A.—I think it was in the forenoon; I don't know whether it was in the forenoon or the afternoon of the following day. Q.—How long did it take you to get to Ounalaska from the place you were seized, just one night? A.—A night and a co part of the forenoon, and for the most part of the following day. I don't know whether it was in the forenoon or the afternoon. Q.—Now what did the3' do when they got to1 Ounalaska? What was the next step taken? A.—The next step taken was to tell us to stay on board, then we were allowed one half of the crew to go ashore, and then the other half. Q.—Was there anything happened in the meantime? You say you all went ashore. Did anything happen in the meantime. A.—The first half would come on board and then the other half would go ashore. Q.—What boats did you go ashore in? A.—I believe we went ashore in our own canoes. Q.—Is that correct or is it not? I want a distinct answer to that question. A.—I believe we went ashore in our own canoes. Q.—You say you believe—but are 3'ou positive on that point? A,—I believe I am. 60 3°3 (John Cotsford—Cross.) io 30 40 50 60 Q.—Can you leave out the "believe" and say that you are positive that you did? A.—I can remember of no other boats we had to go ashore in unless we went in our canoes. Some would go to the wharf and some would go four or five miles up to spear salmon, or go to the hill and pick berries. Q.—Y'ou say that you went ashore in your own canoes? A.—Yes. Q.—Were there any other boats? -V.—There was no other boats I know of for us to go ashore in. Of course some of them may have gone out in boats belonging to other schooners. Q.—Was there a boat belonging to your ship the "Carolena"? A.—I think it was lost on the way up. Q.—Was it lost or was it not lost? A.—I believe it was. Q.—Will you swear it was lost? A.—I have no recollection of the boat being used in the sea or of seeing the boat afterwards. Q.—Do you make it as your own statement that the boat of the "Carolena" was lost on the way up? A.—I believe that the boat was lost on the way up. Q.—Are you as sure of that fact as you are sure of the other facts you have stated? A.—I remember coming on deck one morning and the stern boat was gone, but I do not remember that boat being used in any shape or form afterwards. Q.—You do remember that one day the stern boat was gone? A.—One day it was knocked clean off. Q.—Where were you then? A.—On the road between Hesquiot and the Unimak Pass. Q.—You found the boat was gone? A.—I have no recollection of the boat afterwards. Q.—How many boats were there on the "Carolena" when you started on your voyage? A.—There were four canoes and one boat. Q.—Only one boat? A.—Only one. Q.—If that boat was lost on the way up it ne,yer could have got to Ounalaska, could it? A.—I think not. I have no further recollection of the boat than that morning the davit was gone. Q.—Do you hink it posible it would be there without your knowing anything about it or without your seeing it? A.— It might be there, but I think not—at all eventsl never bothered my head about it afterwards. Q.—Was there anything done to the canoes by any person after that? Were they taken away anywhere? A.—I think the canoes in Ounalaska were put on the side of the bank on tfte grass. Q.—When? A.—That I cannot say. Q.—Were they taken there before or after you used them to go on shore? A.—We must have used them canoes to go ashore in for our fishing and berry-picking. Q.—Were they taken and put on shore where you described them or were they taken afterwards? A.—What boats couild we use if we did not use them? Q.—I want the facts. Were they put on shore as you described before or after you used them to go on shore? A.— They must have been put on shore afterwards. Q.—Were thev put on shore the very day you arrived there? Q.—I think not. Q.—Will you swear it? A.—I will not swear anything about the cane»es positively. Q.—After they were taken and hauled up on the beach, were they taken out again to your knowledge? A.—I remember that when I was in Ounalaska afterwards the canoes were put on the grass. *m 384 10 20 3° (J eihn Cotsford—Cross.) Q.—You saw them taken and hauled up there? A.—I saw them. Q.-^Where were 3'ou when they were hauled up there? A.—I do not know. Q—Were you on the ship? A.—I cannot remember of any other boats we used, unless we used these canoes when we went salmon fishing. Q.—Now I want to ask you this question: When you were seized at the time you stated, were you catching seals? A.—We were all out after seals the day we were taken. Q.—Were you catching seals and shooting them then? ' A. -—Y'es, sir. Q.—Did you actually have any seals in your own canoes at the time? A.—I had some. Q.—How many? A.—I do not know. Q.—Did the other canoes have seals in them also? A.—I believe they had, and I think Ned Shields had the most. Q.—Do you remember how many Shields had that very day? A.—I think that he had 34, but I am not sure—I think that is the number he had. Q.—How many did you have? A.—I do not know the number I had, but I think that it was under 20. Q.—Do' you know how many Dupont had? A.—No. Q.—Do you know how many McConahey had? A.—No. Q.—Do you consider 34 seals a good day's shooting for one boat? A.—A very good day. Q.—Is it not an exceedingly good day? A.—It is a very good day. Q.—Is not 20 seals a good day's fishing? A.—20 is a very good day and 15 is a good day, too. Q.—What would you call an average day? A.—I do not know that 3'ou could make any average from the time you leave Victoria until the time 3'ou get back again. - Q.—What do you call a fair day's hunting? A.—A dozen or 15 seals. Q.—Were there many seals in sight that day? A.—There were not a great many—not while I was there. Q.—Did you catch any seals the day before? A.—I think so, and the day before that, too. Q.—Did you catch them in and about the same place? A.—In that same place. I think we were becalmed three days before we were seized. Q.—And you caught seals every day? A.—Yes, s^r. Q.—You caught quite a number? A.—I cannot tell. I will have to get that book if you want me to answer that. Q.—Without reference to your book, do you know that you were catching seals at that very spot? A.—We were catch- 5° ing seals there, I think. We were becalmed about three days. Q.—And you were making good catches? A.—I think we were domg very well. Q.—What sort of weather was it the day following? A.— I do not know. Q.—There was no big storm, was there? A.—I do not think there was. Q.—Suppose you had not been seized on the 1st of August, would you have stopped fishing right off? Had you finished your own hunting for Ihe day? A.—I think we would have tried to keep right on until the 20th or 23rd of August. Q.—Did you finish your hunting for that very day when the seizure took place? A.—No. Q.—You would have gone on more? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you had a fair chance of catching more seals, had vou not? A.—I dare sav. 40 60 IO 20 40 50 Go (John Cotsford—Cross.) Q.—You stated that sometimes you would catch seals in certain places? A.—There is no place that is sure. Q.—How many seasons have you been in Behring Sea? A.—I think I have been there three seasons. Q.—Did you get seals every time you were there? A.—I go seals every time I was in the sea, Q.—What was the name of the schooner the next time 3'ou went in after that? A.—I was in the "Favourite" the next year. Q.—Did you get seals that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—A lot of them? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What vessel were you in the next year? A.—The "Halcyon." Q.—Did you get seals that year? A.—I got some outside the sea, but not inside. Q.—Why? A.—The captain would not go in I believe. Q.—You cannot tell whether you would get them or not if you went in ? A.—No. Q.—Were you in the sea in other years? A.—I was in Behring Sea in the Allie I Alger. Q.—What year? A.—In 1890 I think it was.' Q.—Did you get a fair catch that year? A.—No, we did not get many. Q.—Were you seized? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were you warned? A.—I do not know what warning the captain got. Q.—You went out of the sea earlier that year? A.—Yes, sir, we started away soon afterwards. Q:—How long were you in? A.—That I cannot say. Q.—Did you see the cutter? A.—We were in Ounalaska previous to this, and I daresay we saw the cutter in there. Q.—What other vessel were A'ou on in Behring Sea? A.— The. "Sea Lion." Q.—Did you stay the full season then ? A.—No, sir. Q.—What happened then? A.—Ordered home. Q.—How long were you in then? .V.—About a week. Q.—Did you catch anv seals? A.—Six or eight or something like that. Q.—What time of the year was that? A.—I think it was in July. Q.—Was it not shortly after you got in that you were ordered home? A.—I think it was in July we came. Q.—Is there any other 3'ear during which 3tou stayed in the full season? A.—I was in the Allie agffAlger along with 1 Capt. Miner a full year. Q.—What year? A.—I think it was in 1891. Q.—Did you get seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were you interfered with at all? A.—No, sir. Q.—What time did you stay in then? A.—I am not sure but I think we stayed in till somewhere about the 8th of September, or in that neighborhood. Q.—You got se-als then? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—So that if apepars that every time 3*011 were in the sea and stayed anything like the full season you got seals. There appears to be a certain amount of certainty about it. It seems to be certain that you will get seals if you are not interfered with in Behring Sea? A.—It is certain that you will get seals, but there is no certainty about the amounl. Q.—It is almost certain that you will get a certain number of seals? A.—Yes, sir, it is almost certain that 3'ou will get some seals there. Q.—What was your catch in 1891 when you were in the "Allie I. Alger"? A.—I forgot the number. Q. -Was it 2.000 or 3.000 about? A.—I am not sure but I think we caught somewhere between 2,500 and 2,700. 25 ;86 f IO ?o (John Cotsford—Cross.) Q.— How many boats had that vessel? A.—Six boats. Q.—That was not a bad catch for that vessel? A.—No. Q.—Do you eall that an extra good catch? A.—I ca'l it very good. Q.—There was nothing very extra in it? A.—There was nothing very extra about it because Dan McLean caught something over 4,000 one season. Q.—And when you get 2,500 you call that catching "some" seals? A.—I think 2,700 is very good. Q.—I believe that in that same year you speak of there were other vessels hunting near you. Do 3'ou remember the "Viva"? A.—I do not believe I saw the "Viva" that year. Q.—Y'ou have had some experience in seal fishing. Can you, as far as you know, point out anywhere in the world a better place to fish seals than just about where you were when the "Carolena" was seized? A.—It is only supposition on my part as to about where the "Carolena" was. Q.—Well, she was a few hours' sail from Ounalaska? A. —I think she was further than that. Q.—You sailed an afternoon, you say, in tow of the "Rush," and you got in to Ounalaska the next morning? A. —I do not know whether it was in the forenoon or afternoon we got to Ounalaska. Q.—You were seventy-five miles as a matter of fact from Ounalaska, when you were seized. That is what the official statement says. Can you point me out a better spot for the fishing of seals than just at that place? A.—I have never been the master of a vessel and I cannot say what particular spot is good for sealing. Q.—You have made some talk about tiie provisions that were on board the "Carolena." Did you ever look at them to see what quantity of provisions were there? A.—No. sir. 0-—What did you live on on board of that ship? A.—I have not seen much difference in the provision bill on board that ship and any other I have been on board. Q.—The provisions on the "Carolena" were about as good as they were, we will say, On the "Allie I. Alger." They 4° were about the same thing, were they not? A.—No, sir, they were not. Q.—Were they better or worse? A.—The "Allie I. Alger" was the best. Q.—Y'ou made the statement that you did not see much difference between the provisions of the ships? A.—There is not much difference. Q.—What kind of food did you have on the "Carolena"? What did you eat? A.—Of course we had bacon, ham, pork, beef, bread, butter, tea and coffee; that is about it. Q.—Did you have any canned vegetables? A.—The canned goods may have been there, but I do not remember. Q.—You do not remember about the canned vegetables? A.—I do not remember much of them. Canned vegetables is something that is a rare article on board of a schooner for the 10 years I have been sailing. I do not remember exactly what was on the table. Q.—Did 3'ou have corned beef? A.—I dare say we had corned beef at times.. Q.—And some-times yon had fresh bee^f? A.—I believe we had fresh beef when we left Victoria. Q.—And there was pilot bread? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—Do you know how many boxes of pilot bread there was there. A.—I dare say there was five or six. Q.—Where were they kept? A.—I don't know. Q.—Were you ever where the pilot bread was kept? A.— AVe slept in the hold, and from about the centre of the ship was our sleeping compartment and cooking stove, and there iO 6o 387 (John Cotsford—Cross.) was quite a lot taken off for the cabin. I should think there would be no room for more than five or six boxes. Q.—Do you know anything about the size of the boxes of pilot bread? A.—No, sir, I do not. I paid no attention to that and only judge there were five or six boxes. Q.—There was flour on board too? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And the flour was in sacks? A.—Yes, sir. j 0 Q.—It is always a fact that flour on these voyages is taken in sacks? A.—I cannot say that I ever saw any flour in barrels. Q-—As a matter of fact, it is always put in sacks on board ship? A.—I have always sen it in sacks. Q-—Now you were asked a question as to whether there were not also provisions stored in the cabin? A.—There may have been some stored away in the locker, but I did not see anything of that. I know the butter was kept there. Q-—Did you go through the cabin? A.—I was there sev- 20 eral times. I was. often asked by the captain to go down and yarn with him and he used to come forward generally and yarn with us. Q.—You describe that gun as a Bonehill gun—is that an English gun? A.—I think so. Q.—And you say there were no canoes when you left Victoria? A.—No. Q.—And the canoes were taken on board at Clayoquot? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How far is Clayoquot from here? A.—It is about 150 3° miles, or in that neighborhood, on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Q.—You say you, bought canoes there? A.—The canoes were bought in Clayoquot. Q.—These canoes were left in Ounalaska and I am pretty positive it was our own canoes that we were off cruising in. Q.—Were you present when the canoes were paid for? A. I understand that . Q.—Answer the question please. A.—I did not see the )f) money handed over, if that is what you mean. Q.—Did you see who handed the money over? sir. Q.—You were not present? A.—Not when the money was handed over. Q.—What were the sizes of these canoes? A.—I cannot say—I did not take the measurement of them. Q.—I would like you to tell as nearly as you can what was the size of your own canoe, for instance? A.—As T never measured it I canof say, but mine was the largest of the lot 50 I take it. Q.—Was there any difference in them? A.—Mine was a little larger and newer and better than the others. Q.—Cannot you tell me within a foot or two as to the length of your own canoe? A.—No. sir. Q.—Or as to the breadth? A.—I cannot tell you the size of it, but if I saw another canoe I could tell you in comparison. Q._Would it be the length of this table? A.—Inside of a room things look larger than they do in the open air. Go q.—-And you cannot tell whether it would be the length of this table? A.—No, sir, I cannot, but if I saw another canoe I could make a comparison with it. Q.—Did the "Thornton" and the Onward have canoes at Ounalaska? A.—The "Thornton," I believe, had boats and the Onward had canoes. Q.—How were these canoes made that 3'ou had? I' want you to give me a description. A.—They are generally dug out or burned out by the Indians. <88 10 20 40 So 60 (John Cotsford—Cross.) Q.—And what was this special canoe that you had made of? A.—Cedar, I believe. Q.—Was it or was it not cedar? A.—I believe it was cedar. It was elug out the same as any other Indian canoe. It is generally in three pieces—first the canoe and then the bow and stern are dug out afterwards. Q.—Was it a well-made canoe? A.—Yes. Q.—Was it as good a canoe as you wanted? A.—Yes. Q.—Could you get any better? A.—I do not think it—at least I was well satisfied with it. Q.—Is it the same class of canoe that is used now for sealing? A.—I think it was a shade larger if anything. Q.—And consequently a little more steady? A.—Bdug larger it would be a little more steady. Q.—Therefore better for sealing? A.—I do not know that it is any better for sealing in. Q.—And that good canoe, you say, only cost $11? A.—That is the price I think was asked for it. Q.—Will you swear that was the price? A.—To the best of my memory that is the price. Q.—Have you any remembrance as to what was the price? A.—I believe to the best of my knowledge that was the price. Q.—Have you any recollection at all as to the price? A.— There were a few words between Mr. Bechtel and I about my canoe costing more than the others, and he asked me why 1 did not get as cheap a one as the others. Q.—Have you any recollection as to what the price was? A.—I believe it was' $11. Q.—Do you swear to that? A.—As near as I remember. Q.—Do you swear it was about $11? A.—That is what I believe> it was. Q.—Will you swear that the canoe was not 22 feet long? A.—I suppose it was in that neighborhood. Q.—Could you buy a canoe like that to-day for $11? A.— I do not think you could. Q.—How much would you pay for it now? A.—I have no idea, but I think the price of canoes is raised on the west coast. The Indians want more for their labor at the present time than they did then. Q.—Would a canoe of that description be worth $40.00 today? A.—I do not think it. Q.—Would it be worth $25 to-day? A.—If you asked some of the captains who have been on the schooners they eould answer that question better than I. Q.—Well, I do happen to have asked some of the> captains. Do 3'ou know the value of canoes in 1886? A.—I offered a canoe in 1886 30 feet long and all ribbed for $10 and I could not get a bu3'er for it. Q.—I dare say that canoe was nO good; but I ask you if you know anything about the price in 1886? A.—I asked the price in Hesquiat the year before when I was in on a prospecting trip, and I got a very fine canoe for duck shooting. Q.—How long was that canoe? A.—15 feet. Q.—Did you think that was a good sealing canoe? A.—It was for duck shooting. Q.—-It would not do for sealing would it? A.—No. Q.—You say that Mr. Bechtel went up in this schooner? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Did you go to sea with Mr. Bechtel on any other occasion? A.—No, sir. Q.—Your allegation is that he went up in that schooner to Clayoquot? A.—Y'es, sir. Q-—How long did 3'ou stay in clayoquot? A.—Five days or a week, or somewhere around a week. Q.—Did your captain keep a log? A.—I think he did. 20 30 40 5o Q.—And he would enter in his log what was taking place each da3'? A.—I do not think so in the harbor. Q.—Would it not state how long you were in the harbor? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And if that log was produced it would show whether he was there or not? A.—It ought to. Q.—At all events, you say you went out with Mr. Bechte and sta3'ed there for four or five days? A.—I daresay it 10 was about that. Q.—Can you tell me the day you left Victoria? A.—No, sir: Q.—Can you tell me how long it took you to get to Behring Sea? A.—I think from the time we left we were about 15 days getting to the Sea, that is as near as I could guessed-—From where? A.—From Clayoquot. Q.—Y'ou started out b3' saying that 3'ou were hired. Who were you hired by first? A.—In the first place Ned Shields spoke to me and then Mr. Munsie spoke to me and then Mr. Munsie and Mr. Bechtel came together. Q.—What did Shields say? A.—He wanted me to go sealing in the sea. Q.—Did you consent? A.—Not at first. Q.—Whom did atou see next? A.—Jlr. Munsie was next. Q.—-Where? A.—In Robinson's blacksmith shop. Q.—Was he alone? A.—He was alone the first time. Q.—What took place between you and Munsie? A.—He wanted me to go on the schooner. Q.—Did you consent. A.—No, sir, not then. Q.—Did 3'ou refuse? A.—I did not refuse outright, but I said I did not care about going or something to that effect, but after a while I consented to go. Q.—Did you consent at that interview? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you go away stating to him that 3'ou would go or that you would not go? A.—I do not think I agreed either way. ii.—You left it open? A.—Yes. Q.—Who did you meet next? A.—They both came in the shop, and I suppose I might have met Ned Shields in the meantime. Q.—And the next time Mr. Munsie and Mr. Bechtel came together, you say? A.—They came together when I agreed to go. Q.—Had you known Mr. Bechtel before? A.—Yres, sir. Q.—Intimately? A.—Not intimately. Q.—Were 3rou friendly with him? A.—I was on speaking terms with him. The man had always treated me well and I did not see why I should not be friendly disposed to him. Q.—Did you know Mr. Munsie better than you knew Mr. Bechtel? A.—No, sir. Q.—They came together at the same time? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And Mr. Munsie began to talk about that voyage? A.— I think he was the first one to speak; they came together and asked me in regard to going sealing. Q.—You think Mr. Munsie spoke first,—and what did he ask you? A.—He asked me if I was going on the "Carolena' sailing. Q.—What did you say? A.—I cannot tell you word foi Go word, but it was something or another about going sealin on the "Carolena." 0.—Did he ask you to go on the "Carolena"? A.—Yes, Q.—Did 3'ou consent? A.—I agreed to go then. Q.—Did Bechtel try to persuade you to go? A.—They both persuaded me to go, they both spoke to me about going. Q.—And then you consented, and 3'ou say Bechtel went down the west coast with 3011? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—How did he get back? A.—I don't know. ini.l rrf-'n-rn'm vm 390 (John Cotsford—Re-direct—Re-cross.) Q.—You left him there? A.—He was left there. Q.—Yrou might as well be correct about that and bring the 10 30 Re-direct examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—You spoke of being on the "Allie I. Alger" in 1891, and taking some 2,500 skins? A.—I think there were something in that neighborhood? Q.—Were those all taken in Behring Sea or were there some taken on the coast? A.—Some on the coast. Q.—How many? A.—I don't know, but I think I have an account at home of- what we got on the coast. Q.—You might as well be correct about that and bring the book this afternoon. A.—I have not seen it lately, but if I can find it I will bring it. I saw the count of seals we had on the "Carolena" at home yesterday. If I can find the book I will bring it. Q-—You say you got 2,500 all together. Can you give us 20 the number caught on the coast? A.—I would not like to say off-hand, and I would rather wait until this afternoon when I will bring the book if I can find it; there have been so many different catches made on the coast that I have forgotten. Q.—Y'ou spoke of a space in the hold of the ship; was the place the men occupied partitioned off from the hold? A.— No, sir. Q.—There was no forcastle or room there? A.—No. The men that steered had to go down the main hatch the same as we did, and then go forward into the bunk. , Q.—Where was the main hatch? A.—About the centre of the vessel half way between the bow and the stern. Q.—How many men slept in there? A.—Eight. There was one that slept there, I think, in the first place, and it was too close, and he went into the cabin. Q.—About how much space was occupied for the men? A. —There must have been pretty near, from the centre of the vessel forward, about one-half. Q.—Nearly half of the ship? A.—It would not be half of the ship as regards area, but it would be in length about half of the vessel. Q.—About what space was occupied by the cabin? A.—I think the cabin must have been 10 .or 12 feet long. Q.—And extending about the whole width of the ship? A. —Well, there were lockers around the cabin and under the seats. Q.—There was no space between the sheathing of the ship and the cabin on the side? A.—Not that I know of; in 5° fact I did not examine it, but there might have been. Q.—At the time you were at Ounalaska, were there other ships with you there? A.—Yes, sir. Q- -Wl at were they? There was the "<" nwnrd" and the "Thornton" and another. q _Was the "Geo. Duke" there? A.—She was down from us a little piece. There was a little steam schooner called the "Grace Darling," or the "Grace," or something of that kind. Q.—Did you lie close together? A.—Pretty close together. Q.—In the sealing expedition, did McConnehey or you get the most skins? A.—I think I got more than McConnehey did; but Dupont and Shields got more than I did. Q.—When you were seized you say that darkness was coming on? A.—It was getting on towards evening, as near as I can remember. It was getting on to dark and I handed the rifles and the shotguns on board the cutter. 40 60 IO 20 30 40 50 60 Q.—The da3''s work was over? A.—It was getting on towards evening, but, of course, we could have sealed a little: longer, but not much longer, as near as I can remember. They would not let me put the rifle and shotgun on board the: schooner, and "they made me take it on the cutter. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—There was a question that I omitted to ask you. You made a statement with regard to having to pay 3'our way from San Francisco to Victoria, and your hotel bill in Frisco. How did you pay for that? A.—Coming on from 'Frisco. Q - Whose fares did you pay? A.—I gave the watch to the purser to pay the board of a man named John Dallas, and he paid me afterward. He belonged to the "Thorntoi Q.—Who else did you pay for? A.—For McCarther or Arthur or some such name as that. Q.—Did you pay the board of any of the men on board the "Carolena?" A.—That is the only man besides myself I think I paid for in San Francisco. Q.—You did not pay the hotel bills of anyone else? A.— No, sir. Q.—They were paid by somebody else? A.—Yes. Q.—By Mr. Munsie, I believe. The Commissioner on the part of the I'nited States:—That is hardly a fair question, Mr. Peters. By Mr. Peters." Q.—At all events 3'ou say you paid your own fare and the fare of that one man? A.—Y'es. Mr. Dickinson:—I desire to put in, may it please the Commissioners, what my learned friend admits is as described here, a "certified copy of the report of the committee of the Honourable the Privy Council, approved by his Excellency the Aelministrator of the Government in Council on the 23rd day of September, 1886." It is as follows: Copy of letter from James Ogilvie, master of schooner "Carolena." Schooner "Carolena," Ounalaska, Aug. 6, 1896. Dear Sir: The United States steamer "Corwin" boarded and took charge of the schooner in latitude 55 degrees 50' north, longitude 168 elegrees 53' West; they took all the fire-arms from the schooner. I askeel why the3'didso; they said for killing female seals and carrying fire-arms. They towed the "Thornton" and "Onward" in at the same time. I have got 686 skins on board; "Thornton," 404; "Onward," 900. I have heard nothing of the "Pathfinder" in the Behring Sea; she was seen off Sitka coming up. It was on August 1st, at 6 p.m., they took charge of the schooner; canoes and white men will not go; all the schooners that have canoes have got from nine to I f canoes. The American schooner "San Diego" is in here, they have taken all her skins and sails on shore; 500 skins. Thirteen days after we left Clayoquot we were in Behring Sea,, we lost the boat from the stern. August 7, 1886. The Company's steamer "St. Paul" will leave to-morrow; the captain of the "San Diego" and all hands are going down in her. I will send this letter bv her. Your truly, JAMES OGILVIE. Re-direct examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Have j'ou fixed the number of seals vou were paid for A.—154, I believe. £13 IBB WM 392 (John Cotsford—Re-direct—Re-cross.) Q.—You fixed it from your memorandum? ' A.'—Yes, sir. Q.—The memorandum made at the time? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Could 3'ou fix from the memorandum the date that you went to the Behring Sea in 1886? A.—No, sir, I never put the date down. Q.—Or the date that you sailed from Victoria? A.—No, sir. 10 Re-cross-examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—In this memorandum book, Mr. Cotsford, you have at the bottom of it the following: "Received from John Cotsford 104 seals, James Ogilvie, schooner "Carolena." Can you tell me as a matter, of fact whether that is James Ogilvie's writing? A.—That is the captain's writing. Q.—That is the captain's.writing? A.—Yes, that memor: andum in ink at the bottom of the page is Captain Ogilvie's 20 writing. Mr. Peters:—Do .vou put in that memorandum book, Mr. Dickinson ? Mr. Dickinson:—I do< not- put it in; I merely refer to it to refresh the memory e>f the witness as to the date. Mr.' Peters:—I would like to ask this witness one question with regard to the construction of the canoes. I have a picture here, and I will ask the witness whether that is some- 30 thing of the description of the canoes used in sealing. (To witness.) Q.—Look at the photograph and see if that is correct? A.—That is a description of the canoe we use for sealing. Q.—Is that a fair representation of the canoe you use for sealing? A.—Y'es.- Picture of sealing canoe received and marked as "Exhibit 26-, G.B., Claim No. 1." 4° Re-direct examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.-—Judging from the picture, does the picture I now show you represent about the size of the canoes you use in sealing? A.—That is about the size judging from the picture. Q.—Were you in Ounalaska in 1887? A.—No, sir. ..Q.—Did you ever see the "Carolena" in Ounalaska after you left her there? A.—Yes, sir, I saw her the first year I was in the' "Adlh> I. Alge>r" in 1889. 0— The "Carolena" was still there? A.—She was still 50 there. Q.—Were there any other ships there? A.—I think ihe "Onward" was Bill there too, but I did not pa3' much attention to it. Q.—Look at the picture I have shown you and see if you can select from the* vessels represented in that picture the "Carolena" on the beach at Ounalaska? A.—I cannot say positively', but the second one there looks the nearest one to me. "° Q.—Did you .see any canoes on the banks that you recognize as the canoes belonging to the "Carolena"? A.—There are four canoes here and there is one that you can see the ribs quite plainly. There is a hill to the right of that place as you look down towards the schooners, and it was there that the canoes were placed. Q.—You would not recognize' the'm as the canoes of the "Carolena" in Ihe- picture? A.—I might. 20 A. J. Bechtel re-called. Cross-examination by Mw Dickinson; (John Cotsford—Re-cross.) (A. J. Bechtel—Cross.) Q.—Look at both pictures there and see if you do? A.— No, sir, I cannot recognize them except that in the first picture one looks as if it had the ribs in it. Q.—One more reference as to your book. What was your catch in June out of this 687? A.—On the "Carolena"- in the month of June? Q.—Yes? A.—14. Q.—That is your catch, I believe. I mean the catch of all 10 the men. What was the total catch of the "Carolena" in that month? A.—The total catch here was 52 in June. Re-cross examination by Mr. Pet Q.—Did you keep the total catch from day to day? A.—• I think you will find the total catches there at the end of the book. Q.—When did you make the entries of the total catch? A.—When we received them from day to day. Q.—I see that is in pencil and you made it at the bottom in ink "total seals 686"? A.—Y'es. Q.—In pencil you have added it up 688? A.—There are 76 to be added to the 610. Q.—It appears you added it up to the end of July. The 31st of July is the last entry there of seals caught, and there are six for that day? A.—Here is another day with 76 caught. Q.—In one day? A.—In one day. Q.—Did you only catch seals that one day in that month? 30 A.—That is the day we were seized. Q.—You caught 76 that day? A.—Yes, all told. Q.—You have here 686 in ink, and 688 in pencil. Can you tell which is the correct number, and tell us when you corrected it? A.—That is a 6 and not an 8. Q.—Perhaps it is, but it is a funny one? A.—I never expected to show that book to anyone. Q.—You never expected to show this book to any person? A.—No. Q.—When did you make that entry in ink? A.—In 1886. 40 Q.—After you came back? A.—I do not know whether I made it on board the schooner or not. I might have made it When I got home. I cannot say positively, it is years ago when that was put down at any rate. Mr. Dickinson:—I gave my learned friend notice this morning that I would like to have Mr. Bechtel re-called to cross- examine him on something I omitted, I have only to put a few questions to him. Mr. Peters:—You gave me notice this morning—I think 5° the exact words were—to produce Mr. Bechtel for cross-examination. I answered that I thought as you had a full opportunity of cross-examining Mr. Bechtel that if.you wished to recall him, you should recall him as your own witness. Mr. Dickinson:—J do not propose to ask anything I have cross-examined before. It is only in regard to something I have omitted in his cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—We are gQ inclined to allow it, Mr. Dickinson. mam* io 20 30 40 50 60 394 (A. J. Bechtel—Cross—Re-direc ;d that you owned Q.—In 3'our examination to-day you state the "City of San Diego"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that she was an American ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Had you registered her at the port of San Francisco? A.—I am not positive about that. Q.—You are not positive about it? A.—She would likely have to be, I cannot say. Q.—Did you register her here in Victoria? A.—She would have to be registered in one place or the other, I suppose. Q.—You do not remember registering her in San Francisco? A.—I would not be positive. Q.—Where did you buy her? A.—In San Francisco. Q.—Were you living there? A.—No, sir. Q.—Hid you register her when you bought her? A.—I cannot tell just now, but I can tell you later on. Q.—Do 37ou remember if you registered her there yourself after buying her? A.—I suppose I did. Q.—Are you known by the names of A. J. Bechtel, and John A. Bechtel? A.—I am known as A. J. Bechtel. Q.—Are you also known as John A. Bechtel ? A.—That is the name I was christened by. Sometimes A. J. Bechtel, and sometimes John A. Here I am known as A. J. Bechtel. Q.—I would like you to ascertain whether you registered the "City of San Diego" after you bought her in San Francisco? A.—That is what time she registered? Q.—No, but whether you did register her understand me to ask about the time made a mistake. or not. If you you registered her you After 3'ou purchased her and became owner did you register her in San Francisco? A.—I cannot say now. Q.—Can you ascertain and let us know? A.—I think I can. Q.—When you registered her here at Victoria, did yera register her in your own name? A.—I should think so. Q.—Did you register Mr. Munsie as the Managing Owner? A.—I believe so. Mr. Munsie was the managing owner; that is to say he managed the vessel for me during my absence. Q.—Was Mr. Munsie the managing owner? A.—He managed the vessel when I was away. Q.—Did you report for registry, Wiliam Munsie as the managing owner of the "San Diego" in the port of Victoria, at the Registry Office? A.—I think not, I am almost positive I did not. I really do not understand the question. Q.—The question is very plain. Did not you register the "San Diego" at Victoria in 1892? A.—She never was registered as Mr. Munsie managing owner. Q.—Did you ever report to the Registrar that Mr. Munsie was managing owner? A.—To the best of my knowledge I did not. Q.—I will ask you: whether, on the 28th. December, 1892 you, John A. Bechtel, did not report to the Registrar of Shipping at the port of Victoria, B. C; William Munsie, of Victoria, as the Managing owner, of the "City of San Diego? A. —If it is there I must have done it. Q.—Look at that paper and what do you answer after reading it? A.—I must have done it. Q.—Did you or did you not? A.—I should think if I did there would be another paper attached to that. Whose writing is that in? Q.—That is a copy of the report from the Collector's office. A.—It is right enough then if it" came from the Collector. Q.—Now did you also file with the Registrar of the port here a copy of 3"our registry at San Francisco certified by the British Consul, at the time you applied for registry here? A. IO 20 395 (A. J. Bechtel—Re-direct) —I would not be positive what I did do; that is something new to me. There was considerable running around to do. Q.—After you bought this ship in San Francisco did not you apply for a certified copy and have the Consul certify a copy of your registry at San Francisco? A.—I cannot say. Q.—Did you some back here on the ship yourself? A.— No, sir. Q.—Did you order her to be sent here? A.—No, I sent her to sea and she came in here. Q.—Look at the paper I now show you and see if it refreshes your memory that you filed at the registry office here a certified cop3' of your registry of the "City of San Diego" at San Francisco? A.—There is no doubt of that I suppose, according to what I see. Q.—Did you attend to the business and take out the registry here yourself? A.—Yes. Q.—You filed the papers and got the registry here? A.— Y'es, sir, but I will not say what date it was. Q.—But you did not when it was done? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You attended the filing of the papers and the getting of the registry made? A.—I might have had a broker or somebody to attend to it for me. I don't just remember who it was. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—I simply want to ask you this question. You bought this ship in 1891, and there were certain papers with regard to her and it appears she has been transferred to this city for registry here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.;—As a matter of fact did you know anything about the papers requisite at that time yourself? A.—No. Q.—Did you get any person to have the papers made out for you? A.—In San Francisco? Q.—Yes, or in Victoria? A.—Yes, there was a firm I forget the name of it now, that did the business for me. Q.—You employed some person to do the business for you? A.—Yes. Q.—Were they shipping men, or legal men, or what? A.— They were shipping men, I could get their names easily enough, I simply had the business done-and paid for it *jid came away. Q.—Did you employ any person in Victoria to complete the transaction? A.—There was some person, I believe, who did the writing for me, I do not remember who it was. Q.—Was that a lawyer or a shipping man or what? A.—I think he would likely be a broker. Examination closed. Mr. Peters:—My learnel friend Mr. Dickinson, has tendered in evidence, for som5 purpose,.I do not know what, the registry of the ship the "City of San Diego," I should think to ought to point out in what possible way, the registry of the "City of San Diego can have any effecf upon thin case? Mr. Dickinson:—I will state, of course, with entire frankness that Mr. Bechtel has, as appears by his testimony, bought 6~> the ship, the "City of San Diego" in San Francisco. It appears that subsequently he appeared here and applied for the registry and presented the deed of his naturalization papers, it appears that he filed here with the registrar to obtain the it apears that he filed with the registrar to obtain the registry, a copy of the registry in his own name, taken out by him for the "City " of San Diego" in the cit.v of San Francisco. It appears, as we will show subsequently, by a statute of the United States, 40 50 39^ that the registr3' cannot be obtained, except by an American citizen. It appears further by the registry filed here that John A. Bechtel in applying for the registry here did file a copy of the registry at,San Francisco, duly certified by the British Consul in which it appears that he had taken the oath that he was then an American citizen—the oath required by the revised statute which we will subsequently show. That is all I have to say. Mr. Peters::—That being the object for which this document is produced, I submit that it ought not to be nor cannot be received as authentic testimony in this matter. My learned friend aeimits that the fact of the registry of this ship, the "San Diego has nothing to do with he case. But he says that certain certificates are filed here purporting to be signed, and which no doubt were signed by the British consul at San Francisco, which states certain facts with regard to this gentleman's nationality. Now, it docs appear to me that if we are to try to obtain anything like the best evi- 20 dence, this is certainly not the best evidence that can be obtained upon this paricular matter. The man himself is here and my learned friend can ask him these questions, or he can ask other people these questions, but instead of doing that he puts in what is clearly secondary evidence. Some other person says that this gentleman was an American citizen, and some other persons say that he made a declartion one time! But it is also alleged here that he owned an American ship, and they assume from that that he could not have been the owner unless he were an American citizen. Surely that 30 is not the best way to prove it. The question whether a man is an American citizen or not must depend upon certain facts. And when these facts are laid before the Tribunal you will be able to judge whether or not he is an American citizen. He may be an American citizen by birth or by naturalization, but there should be evidence to prove that, and then the court can judge as to whether the allegation is right or not. The mere certificate from another person that he did something, which prima facie only an American citizen can do is not the best evidence of his nationality, and 4° more especially when the man is here himself, and can be examined on that point. I submit, however, that even evidence as to his birth or nationality is not relevant here at all, and by and by we will have something more to say about that in our final argument. Mr. Dickinson:—I quite agree that the statement of another person, that Mr. Bechtel was an American citizen, would not be evidence. But when Mr. Bechtel filed in a public of&ce that statement of the ownership- of the vessel, that statement is his own. He has had the benefit of it, and it is evidence of the fact that he took the oath that he was an American citizen without which, as we shall show, he could not have registered the ship at San Francisco. Now, we do not propose to be put to the examination of Mr. Bechtel, or to be bound by the testimony of Mr. Munsie—certainly not by Mr. Bechtel for obvious reasons that appear b3' this record. But, if we can show that he has filed a public statement iu a public office that he has taken the oath that he is an American citizen, we are entitled to that as authentic 60 testimony tending to show his citizenship, precisely as if we . were on the other side of the world and we could not reach him. We can take any admissions or any statements made in .the assertion of his rights of property, and it will have all the weight of an admission. We'^assert'that if he went to San Francisco to be registered there, and took the oath that he was an American citizen, and filed that here in order to . get a British registry, that w<' are entitled to have that statement, if we can show that he filed it or thai it was filed 4Q 50 by his authority in the British Registry Office. I do not know what more authentic testimony we can get in the absence of Mr. Bechtel, and under the conditions of this case, we are entitled to proceed precisely as if he were absent, because we do not propose to be bound by his statement on any subject. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—We think it slnuild be received in the tame way as other testimony I0 and subject to the objection already noted, left for further consideration. Mr. Dickinson:—This is a certified copy, certified by the registrar of shipping at this port on the 11th of December. Received and marked Exhibit. 2 (U.S.) Claim No. 1. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Will this be filed as an exhibit? 20 Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, sir, I desire to tell the Commissioners what is in it.' Among the papers so certified is an application of Munsie, of the 28th of December, 1892, showing the size of the vessel. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—If it is going to be printed, I think it would be better to give nothing more than is necessary to draw attention to what the document is; otherwise we are duplicating the evidence.' Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, but we have been listening, may it ■* please your Lordship, for most of the time we have been in session to certain kinds of proof.. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I merely add that by way of suggestion, Mr. Dickinson. Take your own course. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—This is a solemn act of citizenship and it is more than a declaration, I think we know what it contains. Mr. Dickinson:—Does your Honour know what is in the statement? If so, I will file this exhibit and say no more about it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand it is the necessary application to obtain a registry of the vessel. You can read it if you desire to, Mr. Dickinson. . Mr. Dickinson:—I have no desire to if the Commissioners have not a desire to hear it. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I withdraw any objection that I may have been understood to have made to 3'our reading what is in the statement. Mr. Dickinson:—I simply wish to have a statement as to what is to go down on the notes. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I quite Go understand your position. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It is an act of citizenship of the highest character. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—From your argument. Mr. Dickinson. I have had a pretty general idea of what the character of it is, of course, if you wish it to go in the notes there would be no objeeton. I Ifl ■ tif itui I 1 10 20 3° 398 Mr. Dickinson:—I simply thought it better that it should go into the testimony for what purpose it was for. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I thought you said you were reading it for the benefit of the Commissioners. Mr. Dickinson:—I simply want it to go into the notes so that it would be seen from the day's proceedings what these documents were. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:— You had better continue. Mr. Dickinson:—There is a declaration by John A. Bechtel purporting to be signed by him that William Munsie, of Victoria aforesaid, is the managing owner of the "City of San Diego?" Exhbit "B" attached to the certificate is a declaration of ownership by John A. Bechtel with a statement that he was naturalized by the proper legislative authority of the Dominion of Canada 49 Vic. Sec. 13, on the 21st of April, 1892. There is a certificate of the San Francisco registry certified as a copy by the British Consul at San Franeiisco in which it was recited (Exhibit C.) of the paper, that John A. Bechtel in pursuance of the regulations of commerce and navigation, Revised Statutes of the United States, having taken and subscribed the oath required by law, and having sworn that he is the only owner of the vessel "City of San Diego" of San Francisco, is himself a citizen of the United States, etc.. giving the tonnage of the vessel on the usual registry form, then follows a certificate of survey by Walter Walker of the city of Yictoria, on the 19tli of December, 1892. Mr. Peters:—I wish to point out, so that it may go down on the notes that this document does not contain the declaration. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is true, but the certificate is there that he made the declaration. Mr. Peters:—This is a statement by a third person that Mr. Bechtel made an affidavit which we have not before us. Is that to be taken in place of evidence, whien you can get direct evidence on the point. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Bechtel himself presented these papers to the Customs House. Mr. Peters:—But Mr. Bechtel is not a party to this transac- 5° tion. This is taken as evidence, not against Mr. Betchel, but against the Queen, or the party really interested, Mr. Munsie. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That certificate is evidence in any court of the United States, and in a trial for murder on board that vessel that certificate alone would be evidence on behalf of the United States, as against the person who committed the murder—it would be evidence that the vessel was owned by an American citizen. 60 Mr. Peters:—That might be all well enough where the question in issue was the ownership of that vessel, it might be evielence that the person who committed the murder did so on an American ship and was under the jurisdicton of the American courts. That is not the question in this case. The question in this suit is between other partes altogether. Take the strongest case that e-ould be put. Suppose Bechtel sat down and deliberately wrote and swore to it that he was an American dtizen I claim that such a declaration could not be 40 IO 399 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) used in this case. There is no question with Mr. Bechtel here. The question is between other parties altogether. Mr. Bechtel may not know what constitutes an American citizen, he may be one and he may not be one. He may think, for instance, that because he has resided for so many years in the States that that would make ham an American citizen, and bona fide he may have made that affidavit. The point which the Commisioners have to make is: Is this man an American citizen or is he not. It is not whether this man, at one time or at another, stated that he was an American citizen. I could understand that If Mr. Bechtel were asked the question, and that he said he was not an American citizen, these documents might be put in, not for the purpose of proving that the was an American citizen, not for the purpose of proving that he was an American citizen, but for the purpose of testing his credibility. I would go to the extent of saying that even an affidavit of his, except as against him- 20 self, cannot be used. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Are we not taking up a great deal of time about this. This point has all been reserved. Mr. Peters:—I am aware of that. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest3':—The admissibility of the whole of this evidence is reserved. Mr. Peters:—Yes, My Lord, but I wish to put myself on re- I cord as making this objection? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is not a mere declaration of citizenship, but it is an act of citizenship on his part. I do not ask you to. argue on it now, Mr. Peters, but I simply e-all 3'our attention to it so that at the proper time we can hear your argument upon it. Mr. Peters:—I wish to make it clearly understood that I object to this. 40 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It is all reserved, and it is open for you to make your argument at a later stage. Captain Alexander McLean, was called as a witness on the part of the United States, and duly sworn: SO Dired examination by Mr. Dickinson. Mr. Dickinson:—I suppose my learned friend will admit that this is the Captain Alexander McLean referred to in both the American and British cases as Alexander McLean. Mr. Peters:—There is an Alexander McLean frequently mentioned, but I do not know this witness to be the man. I will admit that the name is frequently mentioned in the case. 60 Mr. Dickinson:—I simply want to identify him as the man referred to as Alexander McLean engaged in the sealing business. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper:—Was he a witness relied on in Paris by you? Mr. Dickinson:—By both sides. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper;—No, we did not haye him. 400 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) By Mr.' Dickinson: Q.—Captain, where were you born? A.—In Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. Q.—How many years did you sail on the eastern coast? A.—Up until 1880. Q.—What about is your age? A.—I am 37 years of age. . Q.—In what class of boats were you sailing on the eastern io coast? A.—Mostly all classes of ships. , Q.—Fishing vessels? A.—Yes, all classes. Q.—Yrou were brought up to that sort of business, were you not? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—What year did you come to this coast? A.—I came 3'ears ago; in 1884. Q.—Did you come around the Horn? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where did you come to? A.—I came to San Francisco. Q.—What did you do in San Francisco? A.—I remained 20 there for a few months. Q.—And then where did you go? A.—I came to Victoria. Q.—At what time did you arrive at Victoria, or about what time? A.—I think it was about April, 1880. Q.—What boat, if any, did you first sail out of Victoria in? A.—I sailed on a steamer called the "Gertrude." Q.—Where did she run? A.—From here to the Fraser river. Q.—How long were you on her? A.—Probably a couple of months. 30 Q.—And then where did you go? A.—I went on the steamer called the "Sir James Douglas." Q.—Where did she run? A.—She was owned by the Canadian government. Q.—What position were you in on her? A.—I was mate of her for a while. Q.—She belonged to the Customs Service, I think? A-— No, she was under.the control of the Marine and Fisheries Department. Q.—When did vou first commence sealing here? A.—In 40 1883. Q.—I think you went out in the "San Diego—not the "City of San Diego." A.—Yes, the "San Diego" from San Francisco. Q.—Mv learned friend has read in from one of these books that in 1883 the "San Diego" got 2,300 seals in Behring Sea. Who sailed the "San Diego" in 1883? A.—There was a captain on board of her named Cotswell. Q.—Were you yourself on board? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were you engaged in sealing that year on the "San 5° Diego A.—Yes, sir. Go Q.—What was her catch? A.—Her catch was something close on to 1,200. Q.—How much did she catch in Behring Sea, and how much outside? A.—I cannot say exactly how much was caught outside, but her catch' was mostly in Behring Sea. Q.—Did you fit out the "San Diego" in 1883? A.—No, sir, the owners fitted her out. Q.—In what capacity did you go on her? A.—I was navigator and boat steerer. Q.—What was she equipped for? A.—She was equipped for sealing and walrusing. Q.—How many boats had she got? A.—Three boats. Q.—And guns? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What kind of guns? A.—She had guns and rifles both. Q.—How many men? A.—13 men. Q.—Did you go out the next season? A.—Yes, sir. «e§J£ 10 Q.—What in? A.—A vessel called the "Favourite." Q.—That was in 1884? A.—Yes. Q.—Where did you outfit? A.—In Victoria. Q._What is the tonnage of the "Favourite"? A.—The "Favourite" was something like 78 or 80 tons, I am not sure which. Q.—Who owned the "Favourite?" A.—It was owned by the firm of Spring & Company. Q.—Who composed the firm of Spring & Company? Mr. Peters:—I wish to know what the ownership of the "Favourite" has to do with this case? Mr. Dickinson:—We want to show who outfitted her. Mr. Peters:—I do not want to take any technical objeetiew, but it seems to me this is not at all in order. Mr. Dickinson: further case. -I do not want to use this evidence in any 30 Mr. Peters:—Of course you won't; that is clear. Mr. Dickinson:—I could by giving you notice. Mr. Peters:—AVe on our side have, as Sat as possible, kept out any evidence regarding the vessels in issue before the Con von tion. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The 'Favourite" is an issue here. Mr. Dickinson:—She was warned. 40 So Co The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It is understood, Mr. Dickinson, that we should keep the evidence clear from those vessels in issue as far as possible. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not wish to go into any evidence that might come up in the "Favourite" case; this witness merely happened to be on the schooner, and I wish to get from him the evidence as to the outfitting. I will withdraw from him the question of the ownership, if that is the sole ground of objection. Mr. Peters:—I object to it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It seems to me that there has been an understanding that we should not enter into the case of any vessel in issue here. Mr. Dickinson:—She was not seized, but only warned. Mr. Peters:—In which case her outfit would be very material evidence. Mr. Dickinson:—This is the year 1884 I am asking about. The Commisioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Would not the more relevant Inquiry be as to the knowledge of this witness, and then as to. what would be the ordinary outfit of vessels for sealing, without going into the particular question of details. Mr. Dickinson:—I desire to show this witness's experience, but at the suggestion of your Lordship, I will not go into details. By Mr. Dickinson:— Q.—The "Favourite" was outfitted and went into the Behring Sea? .V.—Not in 1884. She was on the west coast erf Vancouver Island in 1884. 20 40; io 20 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) Q.—Did you have any experience with Indian hunters in 1884? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—How many canoes had you? A.—From 18 to 20 canoes. Q.—And in that year Behring Sea was not entered I think? A.—No, sir, another vessel went to the Behring Sa, but the Favourite" did not go. Q.—In 1885 what were you doing? A.—I sailed from here in 1885. Q.—In what ship? A.—The "Favourite." Q.—And what kind of a crew? A.—An Indian crew. Q.—How many canoes and how many Indians? A.—I believe there were 12 canoes in 1885. Q.—In 1884 and in 1885 were canoes used? A.—Y'es, sir, there were some canoes used. Q.—In these years were guns useel? A.—There were some guns used, yes. Q.—What did the Indians usually use? A.—At that time they usually used spears. Q.—Did you fish on the coast as well as in Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—And in 1884, the first year, you were fishing on the coast altogether? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—What were yeu doing in 1886? A.—I shipped here. Q.—In what vessel? A.—In the "Favourite." Q.—Did you go sealing? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you have the fitting out for the sealing voyages? A.—Y'es, sir. 3 Q.—In your experience with Indians, do you consider them better or poorer hunters than white men in boats? A.— They are poorer; taking one canoe as compared with one boat. Q.—Now, did you seal in 1887? A.—Yes, sir, I went out in the vessel in 1887. Q.—Do you know of any trading posts on the coast in these years, namely, 1886 and 1887? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What were they? A.—There was a trading post at Kyuquot, another at Hesquiot, and another at Clayoquot. Q.—Did you know anything of Mr. Munsie having a trading 4° post there? A.—1 have never been in at his trading post, but I heard of one being there. Q.—What ship were you in in 1887? A.—I was a passenger on board the schooner "Mary Ellen." Q.—Y'our brother was master? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many boats did you carry? A.—We had seven. Q.—And white hunters? A.—Yes. Q.—One of the seven was a stern boat? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where did you get your hunters? A.—We got our liunters, some of them here in Victoria, and other places, and some of them came across from Japau. e^.—What time did 3'ou leave the Behring Sea in the "Mary Ellen?" A.—I cannot exactly say, but probably about the 20th or the 25th of August. I am not sure. Q.—From your experience what would 3rou call the end of Hie sealing season in Behring Sea, in the years 1886 and 1887' A.—About the 20th of August, I would consider the end of the season. I useel to leave the Sea then. Q.—Why is that the end of the season? A.—We usually 6q found it so at that time. Q.—What stops the season? The weather used to be bad and we figured on getting back about the last of August or the 10th of September, we usually outfitted for that time. Q.—Is it because it is too rough for the small boats that the season closes? A.—Of course we could remain therefor a longer time, but probably the weather would not justify us in doing so. 50 IO 20 30 40 50 Go (Alex. McLean—Direct.) Q.—The "Mary Ellen" was an American ship? A.—She was built in San Francisco, but she was a British vessel at that time. Q.—Could you give us some account of your catch on the "Mary Ellen" in 1887? A.—I could not positively state that. Q.—You -were subpoenaed to bring your books here? Where are your books in the case of the "Mary Ellen? A.«— I gave them to Mr. Peters some time ago. Q.—Do you know where the log of the "Mary Ellen" is? A.—I think it was in the books I gave; there were six or seven books. Q.—"What other books have you got to show, your catches, the place where yon got them, the number taken and what men were out? A.—Well, that book there and the log book. . Q.—You spoke of five or six books, what are they? A.— They are the journals of the voyage for the different vessels. Q*—Is the log of the "Favourite" for 1886 with these books'' A.—Yes, I gave it to Mr. Peters with the other books. I gave the logs from 1884 to 1887. Q.—Y'ou kept accurate logs, did you? A.—Y'es, sir, very correct, I think. Of course they are kept for my own use, and I did not intend to bring them into court. There is one of the statements in that book for 1887 that is not correct in the amount of seals stated there Q.—Now, can you refer to any books that are here to' give the catch of the "Mary Ellen" in 1887? A.—For 1887 in that book it is not correct, but I know within a few seals the number she caught. Q.—Does the log of the "Mary Ellen" show it? A.—No, the number she caught that year was 2,470. Q.—This book, or the log book, is not correct? A.—That book is not correct for 1887. The log book does not show the number of seals. Q.—What part of that log book do you say is not correct, Captain? A.—From June to July. Q.—Why? A.—Because this part of it was made up from 1886 from the "Mary Ellen" and was placed in this book? I wanted to get the position she caught the seals on in the fair weather grounds in 1886. I put that in there so as to be handy to refer to at any time. Q—What was the catch for 1887? A.—2,470, it might be a few more or less. Q.—Did that include the coast catch? A.—Yes. Q.—What was the tonnage of the "Mary Ellen"? A.—78 or 80 tons. Q.—About how many were there in the coast catch? A.— I believe 827 of these were coast catch, and 139 on the passage. Q.—What passage did 3rou mean? A.—The passage from Victoria to Behring Sea. We delivered 127 here, and I think we got 139 on the passage up to the Behring Sea. Q.—How many years did .vou leave the Behring Sea about the 19th or 20th of August? A.—In 1883 the last lowering we had in the Behring Sea was on the 10th of August. In 1885 on the 23rd of August, in 1886 on the 19th of August, in 1887 on the 19th of. August, in 1888 on the 19th of August, and in 1889 on the 25th of August. Q.—You have said you were in the "Mary Ellen" in 1888? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you carried Indians, I think? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Two Indians to a canoe? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What crew did you have in 1889? A.—White men. Q.—How many men? A.—I think about 23 men. Q.—Did you sail in 1890 to the Sea? A.—Yes, sir. 404 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) Q.—Where were 3rou in that year? A.—I was in a vessel called the "James Hamilton Lewis," but I did not go into the Behring Sea in 1890. Q.—Did you outfit all of these boats that you have told of before they went out? A.—Yres, sir. Q.—And you fitted them when you had Indians, with canoes, did you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And when you had white men you fitted them out 10 with boats, did you? A.—Y'es, sir, I superintended the work. Q.—In 1891 you were out sealing? A.—Yes, sir, in the "James Hamilton Lewis." Q.—And in 1892? A.—Yes, on the schooner "Rose Sparks." Q.—And in Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—But you were sealing? A.—Yes, sir.- ii.—And in 1893?, what were you on? A.—The steamer "Alexander." 20 Q.—Sealing? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—In 1894 were you sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What were 3'ou on in that year? A.—The schooner "Bonanza." Q.—And in 1895, what were you in? A.—The schooner "Emma and Louise." Q.—Did you ever live in Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what years? A.—I lived here from 1884 to 1889. Q.—Did your family live here? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.— Are yon acquaiuteel with the market value of sealing -,0 vessels in 1I10 port of Yictoria in the 3'ears 1885, 1886, 1887 and 1888? A.—Y'es, sir, some. Q.—Do 3'ou know something of the demand for them then? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were in the business constantly? A.—Yes, I was at it that time. Q.—Will you please tell us, Captain, something of the sailing fleet, outside of the vessels mentioned in this case, and first state whether in the years, to which I have called your attention, namely 1885 and 1886, a majority of the sealing 40 vessels came from Nova .Scotia? A.—There was one vessel came from Nova Scotia in 1886. Q.—Then the majority did not come from Nova Scotia in 1886? A.—No, sir. Q.—Where did the majority of vessels come from in the sealing fleet, or vessels fitted out for sealing in these -years? A.—Outside the vessels we built here, they mostly came from San Francisco. Q.—Now, you remember, in 1886, the vessels in the sealing fleet thai I willread to 3'ou, and please tell us where they 50 came from, if you can. Where did the "Mary Ellen" come from? A.—San Francisco. Q.—Where did the "Theresa" come from? A.—San Francisco. Q,—Where did the "Alfred Adams" come from? A.—San Francisco, originally built in the East. Q.—Where did the "Anna Beck" come from? A.—San Francisco. Q.—All engaged in sealing in 1886 and-1887? A.—Yes, sir, in 1885 and 1886. "° Q.—Did you know a ship called the "Sierra?" A.—Yes. Q.—Where did she come from?- A.—She was an American ship, I think from San Francisco. Q.—She was sealing in the year 1886? A.—I believe she was sealing in 1886. Q.—Did you give' attention to the' pure-base* of sealing ships, anel as to what was going on in 1886 and 1887? A.—Yes, sir, some'. 405 io (Alex. McLean—Direct.) Q.—Do you remember the "San Jose"? A.—She was built in San Francisco. Q.—She was in the sealing fleet in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—Probably between 50 and 60 tons. Q.—What was the tonnage of the "Syera"? A.—She was a smaller vessel, I cannot say exactly, but probably about 45 tons. Q.—Where was^ the "San Diego"—not the "City of San Diego"—from? A.—From San Francisco. Q-—Where was the "Vanderbilt" from? A.—From San Francisco. Q.—She was a sealer? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was her tonm ige? A.—100 tons. Q-—In what year did you know her 1886. A.—In 1885 and 40 Q.—Where was the "Lilly L." from? A.—San Francisco. 20 Q —About what tonnage was she? A.—About 65 tons. Q-—And what years was she sealing in? A.—In 1887. Q.—When was the "Helen Blum" sealing? A.—About 1886, I think. Q.—What tonnage was she? A.—About 65 tons. Q.—Do you remember the schooner "Otter" in the sealing fleet? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what year was she built. A.—In 1880 I think. Q.—Where was the "Allie- I. Alger" from? A.—Seattle. Q.—About what tonnage was she? A.—She was about 73 30 tons. Q.—Where was the "Rosa Sharks" from? A.—San Francisco. Q.—She was in the sealing fleet? A.—Yes. Q.—About what tonnage was she? A.—Forty tons. Q.—In what years was she out? A.—She had been out in 1885, I believe, but I do not know, or cannot say if she was out in 1886. Q.—She was in the sealing business? A.—Y'es. Q.—Where was the "Charles G. Wilson" from? A.—San Francisco. Q._What years? A.—Before 1885. Q.—When did she enter the sealing business? A.—1 should think about 1885, I am not certain. Q.—Do 3'ou remember about the tonnage? A.—I couldn't exactly say; about 70 I should think. Q.—Well, the "City of San Diego" was a different ship, was she? A.—Y'es, sir. q.—Where did she come from? A.—San Francisco. Q.—About what tonnage? A.—About 45 or 50. Q.—What year out? A—.She had been put since about 1885. Q.—And subsequent? A.—Subsequently. 0-—The Svlvia Handy? A.—San Francisco. Q.—What ye-ur out? A.—1886, I should think. Q.—And about what tonnage? A.—She would be probably about 70 tons; I couldn't exacth- say as to the regular tonnage of any of them. Q.—Do you remember the "Annie?" A.—Y'es. ■Q.—Where was she from? A.—She would probably be something like 30 tons. Q.—And what year? A.—She was out in 1885, I believe, and later; and she was lost since then. Q.—When, if you know? A.—I believe the winter of 1889 or 1888, I- am not sure which. Q.—Do you remember the Pearl? A.—Yres, sir. Q.—What was her origin? A.—American, San/Francisco. 5o 60 Q.—About what 77 tons. Q.—And what year? St.—She went out from 1885 on. Q.—The Alexander? A.—San Francisco. Q.—What tonnage? A.—About 52 tons. Q.—What year? A.—Well, she has been in the business for the last 18 years; I guess 16 years. Q.—The Golden Fleece? A.—San Francisco. Q.—About what tonnage? A.—128 tons, I think. Q.—And what year? A.—I don't know of her being in the" business. Q.—About her being in the sealing business? A.—No, sir. Q.—Was she of the class of vessels that could go sealing? A.—Yes, sir; she is sealing now. Q.—All this class of vessels, I understand you, Captain McLean, are of the sealing class? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—They are fit for sealing? A.—Y'es, sir. Q-—As fit as vessels built expressly for that purpose? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Vessels that come around from Nova Scotia, or from the Atlantic coast, are they ordinary fishing vessels, those with which you are familiar? A.—Yes, ordinary, class of fishermen. Q.—And they are fit for sealing vessels, are they not? A. -Yes, sir, they are. Q.—Do 3'ou remember the "La Ninfa?" A.—She- is a San Francisco vessel. Q.—And when out? A.—She has been out since 1886 and 1887. Q.—Do 3'ou remember the "Angel Dolly?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What year? A.—That would be 1884 and 1885. Q.—What tonnage? A.—Perhaps about 45 tons. Q.—Did you state what year she was out? A.—She has been out since 1885 I think. Q.—And the "Laura?" A.—The "Laura" she has been out. too; she is a San Francisco vessel, a small vessel. Q.—Do you remember, the Henrietta? A.—The "Henriet- 40 ta," no, I don't know her; I believe there was two "Henriettas," one has been seized over in Russia. They belonged to San Francisco. Q— Both of them? A.—I don't know. Q.—Do you know about the tonnage of j those? A.—I couldn't exactly say. Q.—Did you know them? A.—I knew of them. Q.—Now, will you tell us about what it costs to transport one of these sealing ships from the port of origin at San Francisco to Victoria? A.—That would depend consider- 50 able on the size of the vessel and number of men it would take to bring her up. Q.—Give the maximum anel minimum. A.—50 tons, four men ought to bring her up. q.—What would be the cost of bringing up a vessel of 50 tons? A.—From $235 to $250. q.—Do any of these' ships that I have mentioned to you have steam auxiliary? A.—No, sir, I don't believe so. Q.—And during these years the regular.tariff for bringing them into this port was how much? A.—Probably it would be about iO per cent.; I could not say exactly what were the rates at that time. Q.—Can you give me, in the year 1886,.the name of any other ship that came around from Nova Scotia except the "Pathfinder?" A.—Yes, sir. q.—What? A.—A vessel called the "Lottie Fairchild." Q.—About what tonnage? A.—About 164 tons. Q.—Was she a sealer? .A—Yes, sir. (Alex. McLean—Diree Q.—And what year did she come around? A.—She- came to San Francisco, I believe, in 1886; she was offered for sale there in i886. Q.—Did she come here? A.—No, sir, she came here afterwards after she had been sealing; that was in 1887. % q.—Do you know of any other ship that came around from Nova Scoria in 1886? A.-—No, not in 1886; there may have beeu some. IO (J.—Now. ('aptain McLean, from where was the cL*mane for sealing ships mostly supplied in 1886 and 1887? A.—Up to 1887 frorn^ San Francisco. <2. — You il:ink probably nine-tenths of the sealing ships up to 1887 came from San Francisco, or American 'ports em the Pacific coast? A.—I couldn't exactly say. Q.—A very large proportion? A.—The largest proportion came from there. Q.—Now, do yeiu know anything about the demand for sealing ships at the port of Victoria in 1886? I think you said you did. A.—Yes, sir, I knew something about it. Q.—Did you have anything to do with a sealer here in 1886 that you did not send out? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was her name? A.—The "Kate." Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—I couldn't exactly say a3 to her tonnage; probably about 60 tons; I don't think she was registered that much. Q.—She was here in 1.886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—She was properly built for a sealer? A.—Yes, sir; she had been out that year on the coast here. 30 • Q.—In 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were sealing in 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were you owner of the "Kate," or did you have any interest in her? A.—I was part owner by a partnership con- trae-i. Q.—What did you do with her? A —I laid her up; she might have made a trip or two down the coast while- I was ' away to Behring Sea. Q.—There was no demand for her for scaling purposes? A.—At that time it was pretty hard to get men to bo to ^ sea, and at the same time we didn t think it was any ways probable— Q.—You went to Behring Sea, I think that year in the "Favorite"?. A.—1886, yes. Q.—And you laid up the Kate, that is you did not send her sealing? A.—Didn't send her sealing. Q.—Now, was there any shipyard devoted to the building of such ships in Victoria in 1886 or 1887? A.—Well, there were some small yards there, but they did not make a regu- c lar business. Q.—In 1886, and before, and 1887, were there any ship yards in San Francisco devoted to the building of such ships? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Name them? A.—One was Turner's ship y^SS; another man by the name of White has got a ship 3'ard, and various orhcijr. Q-—W*re fibey exclusively devoted to the building of thi°. class of ships? A. -Yes, sir, of course they built large vessels at ih,' lime, 60 Q-—This was in 1886 and 1887, was it not? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—How often were you in San IJYancisco in those years 1886 and 18S1p A.—I used to go down there myself about once a year. Q.—Do you know whether or not there was a good supply of sealing vessels, or vessels which could be used for sealing, of the class that you have testified to, in 1886 and 1887? A.—YMk. sir. 408 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) Q.—Was there any difficulty in buying vessels in the port' of San Francisco? A.—It depended on the class of vessels a person wanted. Q.—But there was no difficulty in buying what a person wanted, was there? A.—Enough from 50 to 100 tons. Q.—An abundant supply to fill any demand, was there not? A.—I should think so. Q.—Both of new and second class? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Do you know of vessels being bought there for sealing A.—Yes, sir, I have known some. Q.—About what was the cost, if 3rou know of this class of ships built new at San Francisco? Sir C. H. Tupper:—What year? Mr. Dickinson:—1886 and 1887. Witness:—That depends largely on the materials used in the vessel Q.—Now that reminds me; all these ships to which I have called your attention, from San Francisco, of what were they mostly built? A.—Principally of pine. Q.—What kind of pine? A.—Oregon pine. Q.—Do you know of any vessel being turned out of this class at thi> ship yards at San Francisco built of anything else- than Ore-gem pine" A.—They used some hard wood among the Oregon pine, which would cost more. ii.—But as to the majority of them, give us some proportion of the vessels you have named, that are built of Oregon fine? A.—A new vessel of that kind would probably gi;' built at $100 a ton, ready for sea; would average that sum; of course there might be a few dollars over or under. Q.—Why do you say ready for sea; just tell us what that includes, if you please? A.—That would be a vessel in seaworthy condition, with everything aboard except the ship's, stores. Q.—Does it include the galley furniture for instance? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—And the stove? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the rigging? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Sails? A.—Yres, sir. Q.—Extra sails for the voyage? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Extra rope for the voyage? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—All extras to fit her out in a seagoing condition? A.— In a seaworthy condition, everything excepting the ship's stores. Q.—And you include in ship's stores, what, Captain McLean? A.—Provisions. Q.—What about the repairs on a ship, putting in new planks where they were rotten, is that part of the equipment 'or sea, or repairs? A.—Putting her in a seaworthy condition. Q.—What about the compass? A.—A part of the ship, Q.—The chronometer? A.—Some masters carry their own chronometers, and they are sometimes furnished by the owners. Q.—When furnished by the owners, is it a part of the ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Is there anything 3'ou think of that can be done to a ship when she is fitted for sea, except the stores, that is not a part of the ship? A.—For sealing? Q.—No, fitting her out for sea generally? A.—Well, she ought to be in first class seaworthy condition, not requiring anything else except ship's stores. Q.—Now, do you remember any sales of ships in Victoria in 1886 or just prior to 1886 fitted for sealers? A.—I believe there had been several changes made here in seagoing ships. 20 3Q» 40 50 Q.—Do you know anything about the sale, for instance, of the Mary Ellen? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—She was a ship, I think you have said, of ■ about 80 tons? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When was she sold? A.—She was partly sold in '84, and then again in 1886. Q.—At what rate was she sold? A.—I believe something less than $4500. Q.—And what was her age about? A.—I believe between 18 and 20 years; I couleln't say exactly, I think less than 20. Q.—She was built of Oregon pine? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And when she was sold, did they include her sails? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Good condition in every way? A.—Pretty fair condition. Q.—Did that include her boats? A.—Boats and whole sealing outfit. Q.—It included her in seaworthy condition, and her sealing outfit? A.—Of course she would not be in a seaworthy condition if she had had to go on the dock to be overhauled. Q.—And what was the sealing outfit included at that price? A.—That would be boats, guns, and extras for repairing guns, and so forth, locks. Q.—Do you know anything about the sale of the "Mountain Chief" along about 1886 or before? A.—The "Mountain Chief" I think was sold about '83 or '84. Q.—Whereabouts? A.—In Victoria. Q.—What elid she bring? A.—I couleln't exactly say; I have been told that it was something less than $500 at the time. Q.—She has a tonnage of only about 20, I think? A.—I believe she is something like 20. Q.—You state the "W. P. Sayward" was sold? A.—I believe a part of her was transferred; an interest in her. Q.—In what year? A.—I think she was built in '82; I believe it would be since '82; I don't exactly know what year it was. Q.—Between 1882 and 1887? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was she rated at? A.—I believe the vessel would probably be worth at that time about $6500. Q.—How was she rated in the sale? A.—I think something like $6000. Q.—What was her tonnage? Mr. Peters:—This is one of the vessels in dispute. Mr. Dickinson:—I get the vessels warned and seized confused. We will stop right here and all may be stricken out about the "W. P. Savward." 63 Q.—About what was her tonnage, the "Favourite?" A. —I think something like SO tons. Q.—And about how old was she in 1886? A.—In 18S6 I should think she would be less than—I couldn't say exactly, perhaps IS or 20 years. I guess her register would show. Q.—And do you know of her being sold? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember what she was sold at? A.—Yes sir; she was sold at the rate of $3,000. Q.—With her rigging? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—Equipped for sea? A.—Just as she came in from sea. Q.—How about the "Kate?" A.—She was sold in 1886, or transferred part of her ownership. Q.- At evl-af rate? A.—At the rate of $1,800. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—I think about 60 tons; I am not perfectly sure. 410 I. I III 20 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) Q.—The "Kate," you say, was sold in 1886? A.—Yes, sir, at the dissolution of partnership. One partner bought in the vessel. Mr. Peters:—Mr. Dickinson is now going into several of these cases, for instance the Alfred Adams. That vessel was seized and ran away with the prize crew, and the case came TO up afterwards in that. way. When the case comes to be tried the value of th<; "Alfred Adams" will be a matter that will have to be tried to a certain extent, although perhaps not so fully as though we- claimed the value of the ship. Perhaps it is rather taking up the time to inquire into it now, as it must be inquired into hereafter. Mr. Dickinson:—Let us see, may it please your Honours. The ships that were seized, of course, and sold, and never returned by the United States, their value will be the subject of inquiry, of course- but slips tha* were merely warned, and were not taken by the United States, the question of their value cannot be primarily in issue, it seems to me; and it is necessary for me to show, in answer to the British case, something about the market for ships here. As it happens, some of the ships that were warned were bought and sold in this market, and it is the best evidence that we can produce—the prices at which ships were bought and sold. The cost of ships, as I had the honor to state to the Commissioners in the course of an argument when my friend was putting 30 in his case, is not the question; the question is the market - value. The way to prove market value is to prove sales an8 purchases. To do that I will necessarily find that ships that had something to do with this case had been bought and sold. Indeed, -this has already been shown. A vast majority of the ships in Behring Sea, and a vast majority, I think, of the vessels that were seized, were American vessels. As the case is coming up here all are British vessels, and mostly owned here in Victoria, in order to show market value by purchases and sales it would be necessary to touch one or 40 more of these ships, carefully avoiding, however, according to the intimation of the Commissioners, going into the question of value as to any ship that was actually taken by the United States, for which the United States may be liable for its full value. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Mr. Peters, the value of this vessel is not a material inquiry in the case. Mr. Peters:—It will be to a considerable extent. Mr. Dickinson has taken one or two cases. For instance, the "Favourite," and also the "Mary Ellen;" he has given a statement that these vessels were sold, from hearsay evidence, at such a rate and in such a yefar. Well, it is quite apparent that I cannot leave that matter there when I come to my rebuttal case. It must be necessary for me, if this is gone into, to show the circumstances in which those sales were made. And those very same matters will have to be investigated with regard to those vessels hereafter, and fully come before this Tribunal. It does not appear to me that we will be trying 50 the question over twice. All that evedence must be before the Commissioners when those cases come up; the circumstances of these sales will be before the Court surely, and we will really be trying those cases over several' times. That was the reason, I imagine, why the Commissioners at the first instance suggested that while we might go, and did go, into the values of other ships, we had better, so far as possible, keep away from going into the value of ships directly before this Tribunal. SO The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—In the case of the "Alfred Adams" do you claim demurrage or an3rthing for the loss of the use of the ship? How does the value come into the case in any way? Mr. Peters:—We do claim the loss of the use of the ship; but in many of the cases— io - The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Let us take one case at a.time. I have only got the case as laid before the Paris Commission. There is no claim for the use of the ship. Mr. Peters:—I find that the case of the "Alfred Adams" simply shows that we claimed that the prosecution of the voyage of the "Alfred Adams" in 1887 was prevented. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I 20 think counsel on both sides have been anxious to keep within the rule, way. It was not laid down as a hard and fast rule, any 30 Mr. Peters:—I do not wish to press the objection to any greater extent than this, that if my learned friend goes into the sale of this particular vessel, we reserve ourselves the right to show in rebuttal the circumstances under which such sale was made. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—If you will allow me to make a little suggestion; it occurred to me the other day—I have not talked with my friend and associate about the matter—if you are going on in these cases to prove the value of these other ships, it is impossible for that evidence to come in here without influencing our judgment about this ship. We are human, any way. The rule does not allow you to use in this case testimony which arises in any subsequent cases; and it may be the transactions about those vessels will be the best way to get at the value of this particular vessel. Now, would it be practicable, in some way or another, to make some sort of an agreement or understanding, that evidence which is offered as to sales of the other vessels which are now excluded, when they are taken up, may be used with reference to the valuation of this vessel, for example. I make this suggestion without intending to detain counsel at all now. Mr. Peters:—When my learned friend, Mr. Dickinson, and myself agreed upon these rules originally, my first suggestion was that the rule should be that we use evidence in a subse- 5° quent case in prior cases. He suggested that we should have it something in the form it is now. My idea was that it would be better in a subsequent case, where I found the evidence properly applicable to a.case before, that I should simply state that I intended to apply it to the prior case; but that did not seem to meet his approval at the time. It was a mere matter of suggestion between us. 40 60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—As a general rule, when trying each case by itself, that would seem to be impracticable, because when you are trying this case you would not know what you were trying, nor what your case was. The defence would not know what the case was, and neither would the rebuttal. I am looking at this mere question of values. Of course evervbexlv knows that we cannot hear these cases about other vessels without ha' ing an impression on our minds as to the value of this vessel. I merely ask the question without intending to detain 412 (A1 ex. McLea n—Direct.) counsel now; and I have not spoken to my friemd and associate about it. Mr. Dickinson:—I think we have been getting away from what we have been doing to this time, your Honour. Your Honours will remember that the mate of the "Dolphin" and of the "Favourite" were called here upon the question of probable catch. They were both vessels that were seized, io But my friends put in that testimony in another branch of the case, using the knowledge of those ships as a necessary (hing to demonstrate what the probable catch of the "Carolena" would be. Now, I cannot show the market value without running ae-ross a ship that has been warned. The Commissioner on the part of the I'nited States:—It is understood, Mr. Dickinson, that the objection is withdrawn, so far as this vessel is concerned. Q.—Do 3'ou remember any sale of the "Alfred Adams"? ° A.—Yes, sir, she was sold here. Q.—About what time? A.—About '85 or '86. Q.—And do 3rou remember at what she was sold? A.— No, sir, I do not know the rate. Q—The "Black Diamond"? A.—She was sold about the same time; may be a little later. Q.—Do you remember the little "Triumph"?. A.— I do not know; I believe she changed hands. Q.—The "Juanita?" A.—She was sold. _Q Q.—Do 3'ou remember the rate? A.—No, sir. ■* Q.—Do you remember the sale of the "Lottie Fairchild? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Where, was she built? A.—She was built in Nova Scotia,' Yarmouth. Q.—She was a Nova Scotia boat? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—A good one? A.—A very- good vessel. Q.—What was her age? A.—Between four and five years. Q.—That is in 1886? A.—No, in 1887. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—She was 164 tons. 40 Q-—Do y°u know whether she was offered for sale in Victoria? A.—Yes, she was offered for sale here in the fall of 1887. Q.—Were there any purchasers? A.—No, sir. Q.—She was finally sold? A.—She was sold in San Francisco. Q.—At what rate? A.—I couldn't say what rate. I think about $6,000—$6,500; she was offered here for $6,000. Q.—I think you gave he>r tonnage at 164? A.—Y'es, sir. q.—Was she! a well built vessel? A.—She was a well built 50 vessel. Q.—And a good one? A-—Yes, sir. Q.—SailsScigging and everything ineluded? A.—Yes, sir, everything; just as she came in from the sealing voyage. Q.—Now do you remember the bigge-r "Triumph" which came from Nova Scotia? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—I believe she is about 106 gross;'I am not sure within a few tons of it. Q.—By the way, did the "Fairchild" have any boats e>r 6° sealing equipment when she was sold on her? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The larger "Triumph" was built in Nova Scotia, wasn't she? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—About her tonnage? A.—About 106; I am not sure. Q.—Do you remember her age? A.—She was built in 1887. Q.—And what was sold with her? A.—I believe she was put in good condition. IO 20 43 SO Go 413 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) Q.—Was am'thing sold with her, including boats and guns? ._.—She was sold in the east and brought round without boats and guns, excepting ship boats. Q.—This, I think, was one of your boats, wasn't it? A.— No, my brother's. Q.—Do you know what she cost? A.—I couldn't say as to the exact figures. Q.—Well, what did she sell here for? A.—I wasn't here at the time, but I believe it was between eight and nine thousand dollars. Mr. Peters:—How in the world can a man give evidence when he saA'S he was not here at the time. Surely we could give the same evidence ourselves. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—That is not competent, unless it is proved. Q.—How did you learn this? A.—Through my brother, by a letter he got from his other partner. The Commissioner.on the part of Her Majesty:—I would not rely on such evidence as that. Mr. Peters:—I think that should be stricken out. (The above evidence relating to the last-named vessel stricken out.) Q.—You can ascertain in Yictoria what she was sold for? A.—I suppose I could. Q.—Who bought her? A.—Cox & Marvin. Q.—Where is 3'our brother? A.—In Central America. Q.—He is the man that sold her, is he? A.—No, sir. Q.—Who did sell her? A.—D. C. Baker. Q,—Was Mcfjcan a part owner then? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And Baker was his partner? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—The "Mollie Adams" was about what tonnage? A.— About 128, I should iliink. Q.—Was she sold here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And who bought her? A.—Marvin & Cox. Q.—Here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you know the price? A.—No, sir; I did not know the exact figures. Q.—The "I-.illie L.?" A.—She was a San Francisco vessel, sold in San Francisco. Q-—Did you know an^hing about the sale? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What did you know about it? A.—She was sold in 1887 in San Francisco for $1,500. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—She was about 62 tons. Q.—How old? A.—1 couldn't say as to her age. She used to be a steam 3'acht at San Francisco. Q.—Do you know a^ihing about the sale of the "Mary Taylor?" A.—I know she was sold. Q.—Sold here in Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the "Penelope? A.—She Vas sold here in Victoria. Q.—And the' "Theresa?" A.—Sold in Victoria. Q.—About what 3'ear? A.— I ihink it was in 1886. Q.—When did you first know of the "Carolena?'' A.—I knew her about 1892. Q.—What was she doing then? A.—I used to see her in the harbor and met her out at sea; I believe she was piloting at that ime when I first knew her. Q.—Did 3'ou afterwards see Iut in port? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did 3'ou see her at sea afrerwarels? A.—I saw her at sea the last time I saw her. (Alex. McLean—Direct.) Q.—Have you been on board her? A.—Yes, sir, ly say, 40 50 60 Q,—How many times? A,—I couldn't exactly say. have been aboard of her several times, Q.—You would know her when you saw her at sea? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know her age? A.—She was pretty old; I didn't know exactly her age. Q.—Taking into consideration her age, and what you know of the values of vessels from your own experience and knowledge, what was she worth in 1886? A.—By the age of the vessel and her appearance when I saw her last, when I was aboard of her— Q.—When was that? A.—That would be in 1885; in good seaworthy condition according to the value' of vessels here at that time she was probably worth $1,700. Q.—At that time did you see her before or after she was lengthened? A.—That was after she was lengthened. Q.—She went up on the coast, I believe? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In your experience, from 1883 down, with seals in Behring Sea, what have you to say, if anything, as to the changing of the seals, their location in the Sea, from time to time? A.—Well, it is pretty hard to say. They change around a good deal. Q.—What, in your opinion, from 3'our observation, is the cause of the changing about? A.—Well, it depends a good deal on the season of the year and how the feed is. Q.—What do they feed on? A.—They travel wherever the feed moves to. Q.—What is the f*ed? A.—Principaly fish. Q.—Can you, from your observation in sealnig, from 1883 down, tell from the seasons preceding whether you will in the coming season be able to find seal in any particular place or zone? A.—I don't believe there is any certainty. I kept a book of reference for this reason. Q.—You kept the book with references where you made good catches of seal? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you have been in there again in the same places? A.—Y'es, sir. Placed it on the chart thinking it might be of some use to me, but I found it wasn't. Q.—Did you ever find any rule whereby you could find the seals a second time? A.—The only rule I have found was if they were not in one place to go and hunt for them. Q.—How far does this separation or variety of place extend? You have been up to the Aleutian Islands? A.— Yes. Q.—Of course you fished around the Aleutian Islands? A. —Yes, sir; I fished around a little bit there. Q.—And how far is the volcano from that fishing ground? A.—Bogosloff? Q.—Yes, Bogosloff? A.—Well, that, I should think, is about 25 or 30 miles from the islands. Q.—Have you found them about the Aleutian Islands? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And at another time, how far away have you found them? A.—Sometimes within ten miles of the beach, and sometimes much farther. Q.—How far away from the island? A.—I used to find the best hunting about sixty or seventy miles off, or even 90 miles. Q.—Are you speaking of the Pribyloff Islands? A.—Either the Pribyloff Islands or the main islands abreast of them. Q.—Now, in 1886 3'ou got a pretty good catch outside of Behring Sea, didn't Vou? A.—Some years a pretty fair catch before I went into the Sea. Q.—How many? A.—I have not added them up. 10 4Q 50 4i5 (Alex. |jcbean— Direct.) Q.—Please tell the Commissioners what are the fair weather grounds? A.—What we call the fair weather grounds is from Sitka to Coriac; a certain part is marked on the chart Fair Weather Grounds. Q.—In Behring Sea? A.—No, sir, in the Pacific, in the Gulf of South Alaska. Q.—Will you please see what catch you made in the fair weather grounds as part of your catch in 1886? A.—In 1886 I did not go to the fair weather grounds, sir. Mr. Dickinson:—At this point I need the log, which is not here, which I ask my learned friend to produce. (To witness) Can you figure it from that book, the fair weather catch? A.—I did not hunt on any fair weather grounds in 1886. Q.—Then you have a different catch called the coast catch? A.—Yes. Q.—There is what you call the coast catch and the fair weather catch? A.—The coast catch and the Behring Sea catch. Q.—Did you not sometimes distinguish the coast catch from the fair weather catch? A.—I usually put the fair weather catch in with the Behring Sea catch. Q.—Well, if you give us the coast catch outside of the Behring Sea catch? A.—We usually class that with the Behring Sea catch, when they come in here. Q.—Can you tell us the coast catch without your log, from this book? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Will you give us the coast catch, if you can? A. 436, I believe, up to the 13th of May, 1886. Q.—Now, is there anything outside of that coast catch for that year? A.—Yes, sir, from July 9th until August 19th. Q.—All coast catch? A.—No, sir, Behring Sea catch. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—He has not given the Behring Sea catch? Mr. Dickinson:—No, sir. The Commissioners then arose. Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America- Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 12, 1896. At 10.30 the Commissioners took their seats. Direct examination of Captain McLean resumed by Mr. Dickinson. Q.—You were giving us the catch of the "Favourite," I think, in 1886, outside of Behring Sea? A.—Outside of Behring Sea. I had catches in the Behring Sea, but it did not make up the amount for 1886—41f 60 Q.- All the rest of the catch of 1886 was inside of Behring Sea? A.—Yes. The <'ommissioner on the part of the United States:— Please let him make the deduction, and put it so it can go into the record. Mr. Dickinson:—Give ns the total, and then make the deduction? A,—2678. iMt In)!1 io 20 3° 40 50 60 416 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) Q.—And the cateh outside; just give the balance? A.— 419 on the coast, 2259 in Behring Sea. Q.—Now, Captain, how late were vou in Behring Sea in August? A.—In 1886? Q.—Yes, sir. A.—I have the dates of first lowering and the last. July 9th the first lowering in 1886, and August 19th is the last lowering. Q,—Can you tell us the number e>f lowerings in the month of August in making that catch? A.—Five regular lowerings in August. Q-—And what was the catch of August in this 2200 and odd in Behring Sea? A.—575. Q-—And the balance of the catch was taken between the 9th of July and the 1st of August? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Now with reference to the "Mary Ellen" in 1887, will you -plWse give us the Fair Weather catch; I think there was some confusion about it yesterday? A.—On the Fair- Weather grounds? Q.—Y'es. A.—That was 139. O.—And the balance of the catch—you gave the total catch, I think? A.—Yes, sir; there was 827 before the vessel left the port here. Q.—That is included in the total? A.—Yes, sir, that is included in the total. Q.—And what is the total? A.—2496. Q.—In the Sea? A.—No, that is the total, sir. Q.—That included the 800 you had given and the 164? A. —Y'es, sir. Q.—So that your total catch was how much? A.—2496. Q— And the total catch in Behring Sea? A.—1530. Q.—Between what dates were you in Behring Sea? A.— July 18th until August 19th. Q.—The last day you lowered was the 19th, I think—the "Mary Ellen?" A.-Yes, sir. Q.—When did you leave the Sea? A.—Shortly after that. Probably a day or two after. Q.—Now in your experience in sealing in Behring Sea is there any sealing which would be anvthing more than scattering before the 1st of July? A.—There might have been, but I never found it. Q.—Not in all your experience? A.—No, sir. Q.—And about what time does the sealing commence? A. —I used to try and get in there about the 4th of July. Q.—And the season closed when? A.—About the 20th to the25th. Q.—Year in and year out? A.—Sometimes earlier, and sometimes as late as the 25th. I have been there as late as September. Q.—Did 3'ou have any sealing in September? A.—Yes, sir, we had some. Q.—Was that exceptional, remaining over until September? A.—Yes, unusual, jo q.—1 believe I did not ask you in regard to the "Active." Do you know the schooner "Active?" A.—Y'es, sir; she was in Victoria here some years ago. Q.—Where was she from? A.—She was built up here in British Columbia. q.—Built of this Douglas pine? A.—Yes, I believe so; I am not pertedly sure, though. Q.—Did you know the ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I would like to ask you a question I have omitted. What is the concern at San Francisco which deals in ships? A.—There is a firm there, n. Liebes & Co. Q.—What is its business? A.—Fur business. io 20 40 SO 60 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) Q.—And does it deal in ships, in the fur business, and sealing? A.—Yes, sir; it used to. Q.—And is it the Liebes & Co. that deals along the coast here from here to Behring Sea? A.—They used to buy furs here; also had vessels of their own out. Q.—Will you please state whether you have acted for Liebes & Co. in the examination of vessels for purchase? A. —Yes, sir; I have. Q.—You have been employed for that purpose, have you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—For purposes of purchase? A. —Yes, sir; for purposes of purchase. Mr. Dickinson:—I omitted to ask the witness as to this, if the Commissioners please, on the question of establishing his competency and experience. Q.—What is the tonnage of the "Active," about? A.— Well, I s"hould think she would be probably about 40 tons; might be a few tons over or less. Q.—She was a sealer, was she? A.—She was built for sealing and she had been out sealing. Q.—About what was her age in 1886? A.—I think she was about a year old then. Q.—And what was she sold for? A.—She was sold here in 1886, here I think it was, for about $3,800. Q.—13,800 or $3,400? A.—I was told $3,800. Q.—Who told you so? A.—The owner of the vessel. Q..—Who was the owner? A.—He was Thomas Earle. Q.—Who did he sell to? A.—Guttman & Co. Mr. Peters:—Surely the statement that the owner of the ship told him he paid so much for the vessel cannot be admissible. Mr. Dickinson:—I desire to say a word on that more than I said, and I said notliing, yesterday. _ If we understand the rule, may it please your Honours, as to when, what is called in the text books of evidence secondary or hearsay evidence may be put in, having general knowledge of the market, we can always prove by an experienced man who has had to do with the purchase and sale of ships, and who has been devoted to the business, the current sales by repute in the market. We submit that this is so, on the question of value where that question comes up collaterally in all courts, English and American. I will concede—and of course I would not stand for a moment to contend—that we could show the price of- the "Carolena," for instance, if she had been sold by this witness, and where the question of the value of the "Carolena" for recovery was in issue; but where we are seeking to establish a market and the sales of other ships, to show that other ships have been sold, and what prices they brought, any one familiar with the market can tell, subject to cross- e^xamination to show the unreliabilflff of the witness, either from the fact of his incompetency in not being familiar wth the market or from his testimom', that he could not have been in a position to know. Of course if we were se-e-king to show the sale of the "Carolena" at some prior j'ear, we will say for illustration in 1884, we could not ask this witness what the then owner told him, the then owner not being this claimant. That -would be hearsay, and would be excluded of course; but in seeking to show the price" of another ship like the "Active" at any period in order to estaMish a market, we do not undersfpuid that it is necessary to prove by the parties themselves the fact of tine' sale. We can establish-by repute in the -eiirrent market the sale of ships and the prices they then brought. Of course the testimony is 4i8 io 20 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) subject to cross-examination; but I submit that this is one of the exceptions where hearsay evidence is admitted as the most competent—the most welcome—as to the current values and the condition of the market at any time, naming it. Mr. Peters:—In answer to that: This gentleman is brought here to give evidence as to the value of vessels—I presume as an expert to a certain extent. Now when he comes to give evidence as an expert it is very well for him to give evidence of certain facts and what his opinion as to the value of cerlain vessels may be; but when he comes to go beyond that, and, because he is an expert, to give evidence as to facts, that is different. He is asked: Did the owner of this vessel say so and so? My learned friend says we can cross-examine about that. What can we cross-examine about? All I can get out of him on cross- examination is to show whether the owner told him that or not, and that is not material here. The question here is, what did the vessel sell for, and that can be proved by the owner; that can be proved as a fact; and because this man has some experience about vessels it does not in any way make his evidence an3' stronger as to a fact of which he has no personal knowledge. Mr. Dickinson:—Suppose, may it please your Honours, it became material to establish the price of wheat at Liverpool on a given day. We* certainly would not be required to produce 30 ihe man who saw the money passed. We would show by a man familiar with the wheat business what is known in the trade as the price at Liverpool. We could show—and it would not be as strong evidence as the oral testimony of a man on the stand—the prices current and in use in the trade. That would be inferior testimony to that of a man in the trade, not interested in the controversy, and who testified as to the market. The fallacy of my learned friend's position, if you will permit me to say so, is that the question here is not this witness' opinion of values of these other ships, but, what is 4^> the market value? That is the true criterion on which the question of the value of the "Carolena" turns—what is her market value? Testimony has been admitted here, as having some tendency to show value, of the cost of a ship; and the cost of a ship at Nova Scotia has even been admitted, for the reason that the evidence of market, on the theory of my learned friend here, was not at hand, for the place here at Victoria. So we have gone across the continent, established a value at Nova Scotia, and added to that the cost of bringing the vessel here, so as to establish a market value, and solely 5° for that purpose. Here we show by a witness, who has been accustomed to the trade since sealing commenced, the actual sales of vessels; that his attention is constantly given to it, and has been all these years; that he was at the time familiar with the whole flee! of vessels, American and British, engaged in the sealing business; familiar with the dates, as he has disclosed, of the origin of vessels, building; familiar with the facts as to their changing hands. Now it is certainty not necessary in establishing market value to prove by an expert familiar with the trade that he saw the money passed or saw the contract signed. Go I The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It does not appear that the practice in the courts of the United States and the courts of this country is the same upon this point; and, therefore', there being a fair difference of opinion upon it, we will, in aee-ordance with our usual plan, receive the evidene-e', and let the matter be subject to further observa- IO 20 40 50 Go 419 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) tion, argument and objection. The objection is noted, of course. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I wish, however, to state the qualification that this is not to be considered so broad as to permit everybody to come here anc testify that they have heard about sales. It has been quite customary for brokers, or experts dealing in ships and vessels in our courts, to permit them to testify as to their knowledge of sales on open market; but 1 never have known a persor to be allowed to come in and testify to the sale for the pur pose of proving that sale. This has been admitted in our courts rather iu support of the testimony of the expert, to show his extent of knowledge and sources of knowledge, and so forth and so forth. I remember that there are some cases, and I think, as I told my learned associate, that the Supreme Court of the United States has gone over this question quite thoroughly. We do not intend by this to open the door be- 3'ond the present condition of things. By Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Now, Captain McLean, will you state whether it has been a part of your business to keep posted as to the value of ships and the sales going on along the coast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Y'ou have endeavored to keep posted on sales of shipt in the sealing business ? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Since 1885 or 1886? A.—Since 1884. Q.—And you say that the "Active," from the information you had derived in your business, was sold in 1886? A.— 1886 or the latter part of 1885, I am not sure which. Q.—And sold for $3,800? A.—Yes, sir, that is what I am informed by the owner that built her. Q.—And will you please state what went with the "Active," what was sold, what equipment went with her? A.— Well, she was supposed to be in a seaworthy condition; she was a new vessel. Q.—Sails and tackle? A.—Sails, tackle and anchors. Q.—And the usual accoutrements and paraphernalia? A. —Yes, sir. Q—Any of the sealing outfit go with her? A.—;Not as I know of. Of course I never examined the vessel, I expected of course she was ready for sea^ Mr. Dickinson:—I suppose then, may it please your Honours, that the testimony of this same character as to the "Theresa," which was stricken out yesterday, ma3r stand? The Commissioner on the part of the U*nted States:—No, that stands entirely different. That was information which the witness got in a foreign country by a letter from his brother, who knew nothing about the matter except by hearsay. Mr. Dickinson:—I' was his business to find out what that boat sold for. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Of course we are acting here without an examination of authorities; but my learned associate 3'ielded rather to my im pression as to what I had witnessed as the practice in our courts. The practice in our courts, in connection with the testimony of experts, has been to permit them to state as to sales of vessels and merchandise on the open market, under such circumstances that they had almost primary knowledge of the transaction. It has not been admitted even there for MM 10 420 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) the purpose of proving what actually took place, but simplj as supporting the testimony of the expert as to the value which he gives with reference to the property directly in issue. I do not know but what the rule may go further, but we are without any authorities here; and, as I say,, my learned associate yielded to my recollection of the practice as I have witnessed it in court. Mr. Dickinson:—1 simply wanted to call up the case of the "Theresa," because I intended to call it up and say a few words yesterday, which I did not do as your Honours remember, I did not present any views from our standpoint as to the competency of the testimony. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not know but the late editions of Greenleaf on evidence', and other authorities, may sustain 3'ou; but, so far as I remember, this testimony, would be entirely outside of any- 20 thing we intended to admit. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not mean to insist on having contents of his brother's letter go in; but the question came up how he knew, and he mentioned that, and I pursued the matter no further, thinking I would call it up when opportunity offered. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Fo;. Iwagpiple': Here is a. grain broker, summoned as a witness as to the price of grain in New York. He can testify as to 30 the daily quotations of grain in New York, although he is not even on the Stock Exchange. He hears onty about sales, but it would be far beyond that for him to testify as to sales which took place in New Y'ork when he was at Shanghai. . Mr. Dickinson:—If I may be permitted I will ask a epiestion or two now, in view of the intimations we have from the court, relative to the "Theresa"—not as to value, but simply to show whether the witness is competent within the rule. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—1 un- 4° derstand that the witness was abroad, and that the letter came to him from his brother. Mr. Dickinson:—His brother was abroad. That is the very .point I asked permission to interrogate the witness about. To Witness:—I will ask you whether you were . Mr. Peters:—One moment, Mr. Dickinson. Before my learned friend asks any questions more about the "Theresa," 50 I want to put m3'self on record as raising an objection to this class of evidence'. We' first had the case of the "Active," which the court has dealt with, and now we have the "Theresa," which was excluded yesterday, and a reference to the facts of that, case will show the danger of this class of evidence. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We have not decideel to admit the evidence yet. Go Mr. Peters:—I strongly contend that the whole evidence is inadmissible. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Le*t me illustrate the extent of the ruling, of the Commissioners. Here is a vessel in distress at Shanghai. She was repaired by the mortgagee, against the mortgagor's protest, at a very enormous expense, and the mortgagor's claims that she should 10 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) have been sold there. In that case evidence of persons at Shanghai woulei be admitted as to the value, of vessels there, the cost of repairing, cost of towage and all that sort of thing. They are simply experts testifying as to their knowledge of the: market. Now supposing one of those gentlemen had been at New York when the ship was sold at Shanghai, and bad simply known by letter that she was sold there at such price and such time; the evidence would not have been admitted. Mr. Dickinson:—To shorten this matter, the ruling as to the "Theresa" that the testimony was not competent was delivered by your Honour yesterday. On a mere intimation from your Honour that it had better stand as it is, I will re>t press it. The Commissioner on the part of t'nited States:—That is for mv learned associate. 2q The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Can you alter the circumstances connected with the matter? Mr. Dickinson:—I was about to attempt it. The Commisioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I thin it should be open to you' to see if you can alter the circumstance so as to bring it within the same categorv as the "Active?" 30 40 50 Go Q.—And pretty steady footing some foundation to stand on. Mr. Dickinson:—I had no idea of attempting to put it in, unless it was agreeable to 3'our Honour. Q.—Now Captain McLean there seems to be a misunderstanding. Were you away from the coast at the time of the sale of the "Theresa?" A.—I think there is a misunderstanding about the "Theresa" and the schooner "Triumpl Q.—What misunderstanding do you refer to, captain? A. —My brother never had an3' connection with the schooner "Theresa." Q.—It was-the "Triumph?" A.—It was the "Triumph." Q.—It was the "Triumph" as to which you stated something with regard to her sale yesterday when your testimony was stricken out, where 3'ou spoke of a letter from your brother? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, were you out of the country or away from the coast when the "Triumph" was sold? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Where were you? A.—I was in San Francisco. Q.—The "Triumph" as you understood it was sold up here? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Y'ou said your brother was in South America, did you not? A.—He was in San Francisco at that time. Q.—In 3'our experience in sealing you have employed canoes frequently? A.—Y'es, sir, at times. Q.—Will 3'ou please state whether the' use of canoes with white men was as advantageous as the use of canoes with Indians, or of boats with white men in sealing? A.—I never used them, that is, canoes with white men.' 1 have known of one vessel that used them. Q.—Wil you please state with reference to the practice in the business whether the use of canoes with white men was or was not abandoned after 1886? A.—It has been. Q.—Entirety abaneloned? A.—So far as I know, yes. Q.—What was the difficulty in hunting with a canoe? A. —White men are not accustomed to handling canoes. Q.—Are they cranky? A.—They are hard to stand in to shoot. Q.—Y'ou have to have a pretty certain aim? person must have 422 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) Q.—And you do not know of their being employed at all in the sealing business, although the sealing business had largely increased after 1886? A.—There might have been an odd one occasionally. Q.—Was it considered good sealing to use canoes with white men? A.—No, sir, the white men generally use boats, * nd the Indians use canoes. Q-—Will you please state, Captain McLean, where, in 1886 and 1887, was the best and cheapest outfit for sealing in Behring Sea to be obtained, and the best hunters? A.—In -'lj886, San FraKisco. . «£ Q— And as to the outfit? A.—For the outfit too . Q,—Were there outfitters there devoting their whole time to outfitting, fishing vessels and sealers? A.—Some made a business of it, 3res, sir. Q.—Will you please tell us as to the large catches of seals, what is the condition of seals in these large catches, are they running or asleep? A.—Mostly asleep. Q.—Do you know of any large catches being made of running seals, seals awake we will sa3'? A.—They kill a good many seal that is awake. Q.—What are the chances of losing an awakened seal? A. —There are a good many chances. - Q.—I suppose a sleeping seal you come up upon very close, so they can be gaffed before sinking? A.—Yes, sometimes, and sometimes they get away after being shot. Q.—Even a sleeping seal?- A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And if the seals are awake, is the distance longer from which you must shoot? A.—Yes, sir, but sometimes you get a chance shot when they are very close to the boat. Q.—That is rather exceptional, is it not? A.—Very rare. q.—jfow suppose there are an abundance of seals in the Sea at the place where you are, in your ship or schooner, does it follow that merely because the seals are there you wiil get them? A.—No, sir. Q.—Do you know in the matter of sealing whether the scent of your sHproach has anything to do with awakening the seals? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—How far will they scent the approach of a man in your experience A.—They can scent a man or a boat, further than they can see. q.—go that in approaching does the direction of the wind have anything to do with it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And how do you approach, when you can do it in hunting for seals? A.—Generally approach from the leeward. If they approach from the windward, sometimes they have 5° to take chances. Q.—What is the effect, if they note the approach of man, upon the seal herd- A.—They will wake and leave. Q.—How fast will a seal make way to escape? A—Well, it is pretty hard to say. They can travel very fast for a short distance. Q.—Arid what average rate will they keep up? A.—Well, if they want to, they can go faster than a boat. Q.—And keep it up all day? A.—Not all day, no, sir. Q.—Their food supply is fish, is it. not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you find fish in their stomachs? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And what sort, of fish? A.—Well, there is salmon and different kinds of small Q.—They cat em them in the Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now the passing of other boats, and the use of guns, what effect does that have upon the school, if you find them? A.— If there is much shooting going on it makes them wilder. IO 20 40 50 Co 1A lex. Q.—If another ship has passed over, or shooting is on they are awakened? A.—Yes, sir, if vessels are i they get wild. Q.—If they get wild can you get them? A.—Some not as many as if they had not been frightened. Q.—And I think you have already stated that where are already wakened, and shot at a distance, there is dn$ losing them? A.—Yes, sir; sometimes they get away new men after being shot. Q.—And will they sink? A.—Well, they get away, probably they may die afterwards. Q.—What effect has rain upon the seals when you find where they are-r-heavy rain? A.—Well, heavy rain disturbs them; it depends on the weather that they had before the rain came. If it has been fine weather, it will, disturb them more, they will not rest so well. If it had been blowing before the rain they will sleep pretty well. Q.—Does the awakening of a few of the seals, the disturbance of a few, tend to awaken the others? A.—Well, that depends on the distance they are apart. Q.—Although a man may be a good shot at a mark, or shooting game on land, does the question of the experience of a man in hunting seals have an3'thing to do with the number he gets when he finds seals? A.—Yes. Q.—In what way? A.—In the way he approaches a seal beore he shoots him. Q.—Give the Commissioners some idea of the way? A-— All seals don't act alike, some act different. A man has got to have considerable experience. It takes probably three or four months before he understands how to approach a.sea property. Q.—And what is the proper way from .your experience to approach a seal, and what the danger of. losing him when you see the seal? A.—That depends on the.action of the seal at ■the time, all seals don't act alike. Some hunters they can tell how to approach the seal; they can tell when they see him a certain distance off, whether they are going to get near to him to shoot him; tell by his actions whether.he is asleep or awake. Q.—So that determines the distance you will go near him? A.—Yes. Q.—And of course if you shoot him at too long a distance you run the danger of losing him entirety? A.—Depeneis on how you shoot him. If he is badly wounded you may get him. Q.—Now when you are where the seals are, what effect does the weather have upon the seals, .even if your boats will live in the sea? A.—Well, if it had been fine weather and the seals were rested pretty well, and if there was bad weather approaching, the seals get restless. . - Q.—The coming storm makes them restless sir. • Q.—That-is a modification of your chances to get A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And what is the habit of the.seal, when he becomes wild before a storm, how does he appear differently .when not disturbed? A.—Well, he moves. Q.—Has the experience of the captain of a vessel anything to do with the size of the catch for the season? A.—That is very hard to say. Q-—The expSience of the captain in sealing? A.—I do not Wish to state that. Q.—Is that because Of your modesty? A.—No, I have been at sea a good deal— Q.—But I would like to know; let me see. Has the captain's-judgment, because of his experience in seal hunting, 424 IO 20 40 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) anything to do with the way the vessel should approach the seal herd? A.—It has; he will have the vessel properly equipped, and a good crew of men aboard. Q.—Has the selection of the crew anything to do with it? A.—It has a great deal. Q.—Has the holding of the vessel to leeward from where it is supposed the seals are, before the boats are sent out, to avoid the scent, anything to do with it? A.—No, that hasn't so much to do with it. Q.—It has not? A.—No, sir, a vessel among the seals cannot tell whether they are to windward or leeward of the vessel. Q.—Can an experienced captain of a vessel tell from seeing a few seals, whether he is near a gre&t body of seals? A.— Of course he can't tell as to whether there are a body of seals there until he has hunted there. Q.—Are there indications which go to show that he may be on the margin of a great body of seals, when he sees a few? A.—Yes, sir, he can tell pretty near. Q.—And have his movements from place to place anything to do with it? A.—It has, 3'es, sir. Q.—I think you said yesterday that you had marked the places where you had found great catches from year to year, arid had then gone to the place the next year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You have done that? A.—Y'es, sir, I have. Q.—Is the finding of seals in one place one year any criterion that you will find them there the next year in the same place? A.—No, sir. Q.—Or within a hundred miles of it' might be from 50 to 100 miles from it. ' Q.—But you have never found it t would be in the same.place, have you? the same place ever3r year. Of catch them in the same place. Q.—But you will find it not question? A.—No, sir. Q.—In your experience, what boats as to whether they should do with your chances of getting pends on the state Q.—What is the A.—No, probably it be a A.- rule that they -No, sir, not in course sometimes you may to be the rule, that is the 50 60 rui has the movement of the keep ahead of the vessel, to a good catch? A.—That de- ot the weather. difference between the Indian method and the method of experienced white men? A.—The Indians search around the vessel in all directions, and the white hunters generally sail ahead of the vessel in small boats, i Q.—And go away from the vessel instead of about her? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What in your judgment, from your experience, is the comparative value in sealing of canoes, to. boats? A.—It will take more than two canoes to' compete with a good white hunter. Q.—You mean with Indians in it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—To compete with a white hunter in a boat? A.—Yes, I have found that to be so, and have heard it from other vessels. Of course there are exceptions. Q.—Name the exceptions? A.—Some vessels with Indian hunters make very large catches. Q.—Is that because of the skill of those particular Indians? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Those are exceptions, are they not? A.—They are. Q.—Now Captain McLean you have had to do largely with the fitting out of sealers? A.—I have some. Q—With outfitting for sealing vo3'ages? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Please tell the Commisioners what, in 1886 and 1887, was the outfit for a sealing voyage—generally. I am not \ asking for specific things in fit? A.—For white hunters? Q.—Y'es, for white hunters? A.—That boats, guns, ammunition, and provisions. Q.—Sometimes a slop chest? A.—Yes, sir, a slop chest. Q.—Anything else? A.—There may be some other things. Q.—About how many times have you made up bills for supplies you wanted for crews in sealing? A.—I have made up supplies ever since I have been in the business for every vessel I went aboard of. Q.—Always yourself? A.—Yes, sir. Of course they were ?lled in by the owners. Q.—But you made up the bills of what you wanted? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And on a cruise we will say of four months to Behring Sea about what supplies in the way of pro-visions for men in 1886 would be the rule, in amount? A.!—It would depend upon the number of men. Q.—Well, take a crew we will say of 11 men, hunters and seamen, no Indians? A.—About $110 a month, about $10 to a man. Q.—Would that be liberal? A.—Yes, sir, that would be pretty liberal. Q.—And what in the way of equipment for the slop chest? A.—Slop chest for that number of men, about $250. Q.—What goes into that? A.—Tobacco and clothing. Q.—With that allowance for a cruise to Behring Sea and 30 back, and going through the sealing, would you expect to have anything left on your return? A.—Usually we would carry enough for, say about two weeks. Q.—After the voyage was over? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—So that the allowances you make for this crew of 11 men would be liberal enough, so that if they met with no accidents or dela3's, they would have two weeks' supply left on thdr arrival in port? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—We will take a crew of 11 men, starting out in May for a sealing voyage fo Behring Sea and in Behring Sea, fishing the season there. What would you say of their taking in the way of breadstuffs, 15 barrels of flour, six bags of flour in adeb'tion, 100 pounds of corn-meal, 100 pounds of oatmeal, and 45 boxes—50 pound boxes—of pilot bread, for breadstuffs alone, to say nothing of meats. What would you say as to that supply of breadstuffs? A.—That is larger than I have been accustomed to carry for that number of men. Q.—How about 15 barrels of flour for one item, on a voyage to Behring Sea and back, and six sacks in addition? A. —I think that is more than 11 men could use in four months, or five months, easily. I usually figure about a sack of flour for 13 men for a week. Q.—And that is a liberal supply? A.—Yes, sir, I found that to be a liberal supply. Q-—How about 45 boxes of pilot bread; what would you say to that for 11 men for a sealing voyage to Behring Sea? A. Well, I used to average from seven to eight boxes of bread for a season. Q.—For how long a season? A.—That would be from eight to nine months for from 24 to 28 men. Q.—Did you ever know of any vessel being fitted out with pilot bread for any more than the proportion you stated? A. —Not for a sealing voyage. YVhen trading, I have carried more bread down the coast. Q.—But for a voyage for your men, hunters and seamen, 3'ou never knew of anybody carrving more than seven or 426 (Alex. McLean—Direct.) eight boxes of pilot bread besides your flour, did you? A.— I don't know of anybody that did. Q.—When j'ou state that you would provide a sack of flour a week for a man, how many pounds would that be? A.— There are four sacks to a barrel. Q.—And for how long a voyage would you provide a sack to a man a week? A.—That would be for the whole voyage, that would be for 13 men, about a barrel a month. If a vessel was out five months that would be about 20 sacks. 1 never carried over 60 sacks of flour. Q.—Not in any of your ships, large or small? A.—Not for the ships I use. Q.—And for how many men? A.—That would be about 24 men. Q.—How about carrying in addition to flour and pilot bread, oatmeal and cornmeal? A.—We usually carry corn- meal and oatmeal. Q.—And about how much sugar would you think would be. the equipment for a voyage of four or five months to Behring Sea, on a sealing voyage? A.—I couldn't exactly state the number of pounds. . Q.—But take it by the barrel. We are in large figures? A.—1 suppose about two half barrels of sugar.. ■ Q.—For a voyage of how long? A.—A voyage of about five months. Q.—For how many men? A.—Say about 12 or 13 men. Q.—That is 30U would estimate that for about 12 or 13 men? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Would you Jake any syrup with the sugar? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—About how much syrup? A.—About 10 gallons. Q.—What did you pay a pound for ammunition in 1886? A.—For powder? q.—1 mean for powder? A.—I believe in 1886 it was worth about $7 a keg. Q.—How much a pound? A.—That would be 25 pound ' iregs, worth then about $7 a keg, about that, probably a few- cents less, or over. Q— Whereabouts was this? A.—In San Francisco. Q.—How muepi.would that be worth here? A.—I couldn't exactly state how much it was worth here. Powder is always up and down. Mr. Peters:—1 submit that my learned ,friend has no right to go into what an outfit would cost in San Francisco. ,He is asking this witness the cost of powder in San Francisco, • Mr: Dickinson:—I did not. ask it. it came out. Mr. Peters:—The witness states it. Y'ou are asking .the cost of things at San Francisco. Mr. Dickinson:—The witness stated it, it may be stricken out. Then my next question is, what was the cost at- Victoria, and I think I will ask it. Mr. Peters:—You*have already got into the notes the cost at San Frandsco. . H The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— He says it is stricken out, Mr. Peters. That ends it. Mr. Peters:—I object to having that statement on the record, that powder costs $7 at San Francisco. Mr. Dickinson:—That may be stricken out. All that he says about the price of powder in San Francisco -mW^be stricken out, inasmuch as he says he did not know the price at Vietoria. That is the only item as to which I have aske'el, any jirie-e*. ~-&~, freight on it was. Q.—But the relative prices were higher? A.- iiere was the difference of duty and freight. Q.—Do you know anything about the amount' Of-- salt in tons that would be taken on a cruise of this kind. 'TEheiboat goes up with a crew of 11 ment aid four canoes to be manned by two white hunters each. She leaves in May to seal on the coast only and in Behring Sea only, to return after the season. What would be the outfit for salt? A.—It would aver-. age from about one ton to one and a half tons to a boat, say about five tons of salt for four boats. If they have more •boats they would carry more salt. Q.—What is the average catch of the large catches to each boat? A.—The average about? Q.—Yes? A.—That is pretty hard to say, it depends on the vessel and on the hunters. Q.—What do you say to 600 pounds of ham and 600 pounds of bacon, in addition to what I have already stated as part of the outfit for 11 men on such a voyage? A.—That is 1,200 pounds? Q.—Y'es? A.—It is quite a good deal more than is necessary, but of course it could be used. Q.—-What do you say to 600 pounds of ham and 600 pounds of bacon besides the corned beef and the pork on board? A. —That would be more than I would carry, if I was going out on the expedition with that number of men. Q.—Is it an extravagant quantity; a very large quantity? A.—Yes, sir, it is unduly large. Q.—How much would you carry? A.—I would carry about 400 pounds. Q.—And bacon also? A.—No, sir, that is between ham and bacon. Q.—Between ham and bacon altogether?, A.—Yes, sir. Q.—For that number of men? A.—Yes, for that number of men.. Q.—Would you carry in addition to that a complete outfit 'of other meats, such as corned beef and pork? A.—Yes, sir, canned corn beef. Q.—Is there anything else that you would carry for the outfit if you were going to fit out a ship for Behring Sea in 1886? Is there anything, else that you would carry in the way of outfit, except what you have named: The slop chest, the medicine chest, the provisions? A.—And the ammunition. I think that is all that would be necessary outside of boats arid guns. Cross-examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Now, Mr. McLean, 3rou seem to be a man of consider-, able experience in seal hunting? A.—I had some, yes, sir. Q.—According to your own ideas, and we will see what it amounts to. You come from Nova Scotia, I believe? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—That was a good many years ago; how many did you say? A.—It would be some years ago, I left there in 1874. Q-—Where did you come to? A.—1 came to different places before I came here. Q.—Did you live at San Francisco at first? A.—Not at first. Q.—Where did 3-011 go to first? A.—I have be'i-n at different places before I came to San Francisco. iMM 428 (Alex. McLean—Cross.) Q.—Where did 3'ou go to after you left Nova Scotia? A. —The United States. Q.—What part of it? A.—Massachussetts. Q.—When? A.—That would be in the latter part of 1874. Q.—What did you do there? A.—I was sailing in different vessels. Q.—What part of Massachussetts? A.—I was in Boston 10 and Gloucester, Massachussetts. Q.—You were sailing out of that harbor? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what trade? A.—In coasting and fishing. Q.-—Which was it, coasting or fishing? A.—Both. Q.—How long were you fishing? A.—I have been fishing for some time there. Q.—"Some time," is no time to me. I want to know how long? A.—Probably a year or more. Q.—Was it a year or was it more? A.—I cannot exactly state to the month, of course I would go on different vessels. Q.—Were you fishing on your own account? A.—No, sir. Q.—Whose employ were you in there? A.—I was employed in a vessel by the name of the "Electric Flash." Q.—What kind of business? A.—The mackerel fishing. Q. -Where? A.—Out of Gloucester. 0.—Where were you fishing? A.—On the coast of the United States. Q.—Were you many years engaged there? A.—No, sir. Q.—Was that 3'our only experience of fishing? A.—No, sir, I had some other experience. Q.—Where? A.—I had some experience at home. Q.—Then you were employed in the mackerel fishing? A. —Y'es, sir. Q.—Did you give me the name of your employer, I want that? A.—His name was MacDonald. Q.—What MacDonald? A.—John MacDonald. Q.—What is he? A.—He was master of the ship and owner. Q.—Where did he live? A.—He lived in Gloucester. Q.—Does he live there now? A.—I cannot state. 40 .Q—John MacDonald was owner of the ship "Electric Flash"? A.—Yes. Q.—In the year 1874? A.—That would not be 1874 or 1875, it was later on. Q.—When was it ? A.—Between 1878 and 1879. Q.—Where were you in the meantime? .V.—J was going to sea—deep water. Q.—In what trade, between 1874 and 1878 or 1879? A.— I was coasting on the coast between Boston and Philadelphia and Baltimore. Q.—On your own account? A.—No, sir. Q.—:In whose employ? A.—T was in different vessels, but I cannot state the owners. Q.—Can you give me the names of any of your employers during that time? A.—No, sir, I cannot. Q.—Not one? A.—Not one of them. Q.—That is strange, is it not? A^-No. Q.—Y'ou cannot give me the name of one of the employers you were with between 1.874 and 1878? A.—I did not keep books, anel when I was shipped on board a vessel, I did not 6° enquire who were the owners or who my employers were. Q.—Can you give me the name of any of the vessels you were in? A.—1 guess I could. Q.—Give me them then? A.—I could not give the names at present, but 1 think I would be able to give them to. you later on. Q.—Could you give me the name of one now? A.—No, sir, not just now, positively. There was one called the "Eddie D. Morrison." ret them. Q-—From 1874 to 1879 you were employed in certain ports of Massachussetts, and in 1878 and 1879 you went mackerel fishing. That is right, is it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were mackerel fishing for two years? A.—No, not quite two years. Q.—Part of two years? A.—Not two years. Q.—Were you out one season or more? A.—One season and more. 20 Q.—More than one season ? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Then that is part of two seasons, is it not? A.— I suppose it would be. Q.—Were you seining? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Now, when you were out mackerel fishing, sometimes the vessel gets some and sometimes she does not? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And if during your season's mackerel fishing,' some one said to 3-00 3'ou must not go mackerel fishing, don't you think you woulel run a chance of making a loss? A.—I can- 30 not state that. Q.—You would say thank you, I" suppose? You would not mind that at all, would you? A.—I do not know what I might say at the time? Q.—Y'ou think it would be no loss because it is a chance that you might not catch mackerel, is that your idea? A.- Jt is a good deal of chance work. Q.—Mackerel fishing is all chance work? A.—A great deal. Q.—And there are thousands, and I might almost say mil- 40 lions of dollars invested in the mackerel fishing, is there not? A.—Yes. Q.—And it is all invested in chance work? A.—A great deal so, a good many vessels go out and do not make a e-atch. Q.—Is cod fishing just about the same? A.—Of course they have to take chances, some of them, of course, make money and some of them do not. Q.—Is halibut fishing the same? A.—I suppose so. Q.—All chance? A.—Y'es, very mtu-h like seal fishing. 50 q.—And just to about the same extent as seal fishing? A. —Y'es, sir. Q.—Tilery all have chances and they catch some on certain days, do the\' not. they have all got some little elements of chance to catch seals and fish. A.—Yes, sometimes they catch them and sometimes they don't. Q.—It is just the same with seals as it is with mackerel is it not? A.—A good deal that way? Q.—And there is no more chance about seals than there is about mackerel? A.-—Taking the average it is about the ^o same. I suppose, a nfan cannot say, when he goes out for sealing, or mackerel fishing that he is going to make a catch, he cannot rely upon it. Q.—He cannot be certain? A.—No, sir. Q.—And it is the same way with seal hunting, you say? A.—Y'es, sir, I believe so. Q.—What did you do after 1887, Captain? A,—I came- to San Francisco in 1889 or 1880. 430 io (Alex. McLean—Cross.) Q.—In 1880, that is right, is it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Are you sure? A.—I believe so. Q.—Well, I want to know whether you are sure or not? A. —I am pretty sure of it. Q.—That won't do. I want to know whether you are sure. A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Very well, now, what did you do in 1881? A.—I came to Victoria here in 1881. Q.—And you were living where? A.—In Victoria. Q.—Where were you in 1882? A.—I left here in 1882. Q.—Where did you go? A.—I went up to Alaska. Q.—In whose employ? A.—I was in a vessel. Q.—But in whose employ? A.—My own employ. Q.—No person owned her? A.—I had a partner with me and we were interested in mining? Q.—Who was he? A.—His name is McCulligan. Q.—What McCulligan? A.—Archie McCulligan. 20 3° 40 So 60 Q.—Where is he now? A.—He is dead. I was a passenger name of Q.—What vessel did you go up in? A. on a steamer from here. Q.—What steamer? A.—I do not recollect the the steamer. Q.-^-How far did you go on the steamer? A.—I went to Juneau City. Q.—How long did you stay there? A.—I was there probably about seven months. Q.—What did you do then? A.—I came down here. Q.—That is still in the year 1881? A.—No, in 18S2. Q.—-What diel you do then? A.—I went east. -Where? A.—Down to Massachussetts. -What part of Massachussetts? A.—Boston. A.—I was travelling, I wemt A.—No, I just waptod Q- Q- Q.—Perhaps you can tell me what you did there Yes, sir. Q.—What did you do there? on a trip. Q.—Simply on atrip? A—.Yes. Q.—Did you go for any business? to take a trip down east. Q.—At your own expense? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In anybody's employ? A.—Nobody's employ. Q.—How long did you stay there? A.—I cannot remember exactly how long I was east; probably about four or five months. Q.—You do not know how long? A.—No, sir. Q.—What were you doing when yon were there? A.—I was travelling from one place to- another. Q.—The whole time? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Where did you go after you had done that trip? A.— I went down to the Lower Provinces, Cape Breton. you stay in Cape Breton? A.—Prob- I cannot say exactly, io then? A.—I came back west again got you to San Francisco. I want to vear 1882, and you have told me that Alaska in 1882, is that right? A.—It Q.—How long did ably about a month, Q.—Where did you to San Francisco. Q.—Now, we have take you back to the you came back from was, I believe, in 1882. Q.—Do you know a sleiop sir. Q.—Were you on board her in that year? A.—No, sir. Q.-^Were you ever on her? A.—Yes, I have been on board her. Q.—Did you ever take a trip in her? A.—No Q.—Will you swear it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—With your brother? A,—No, sir, jailed theB'Flyaway" A.—Yes. sir, Q.—In 1882? A.—No, sir. Q.—It is not correct to say that you did? A.—That is mot correct, sir. I have been on board of her in this harbor and also on board her in Alaska, but I did not make a passage in her. Q.—You did not go in her at all? A.—No, sir. Q.—Have you told me every place you were in during these 3'ears from 1874, as near as you can remember, I want to know whether you had free quarters at any time? Just answer that question. A.—I have been in various places during that time. Q.—Were you in prison at any time? A.—No, sir, not'to my knowledge, but I might have been. Q.—Are you sure you were not? A.—I have been in prison once in Halifax, NoVa Scotia. I got into a little trouble there. Q.—When was that? A.—That would be about 1879 probably. Q.—Is that the only time? A.—That is the only time that I was in prison that I know of there. I got into a little quarrel one evening and got locked up about it. Q.—Y'ou can answer the question better than I can put it. Tell me, was that the only time you were in prison? A.—I was' imprisoned once in San Francisco. Q.—That is twice? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you any doubt about that? A.—No, sir, no doubt. Q.—How long were you in prison there? A.—Probably about six hours. Q.—When was that? A.—That would have years ago. Q.—Is that the only time you were in prison ? all I know of, I have been in prison twice. Q.—A man must certainly have a recollection as to whether or not he was imprisoned and how often. Can you tell me for certain whether these were the only times you were in prison? A.—That is all I have been in prison. Q.—Then it would not be correct to say that you were in prison at any time for three months? A.—Yes, sir; it would not be correct. Mr. Dickinson:—Ask him what he was in jail for in Halifax and it will save me re-examination. Mr. Peters:—I shall. (To witness Q.—What were 37ou in jail for in Halifax? A.—I went ashore from the ship without liberty and got into a row with a man and had a quarrel. The principal reason that I was put in jail for was on account of leaving the ship without liberty. trouble in. San Francisco that you got wt into a fight there and I was detained to San Francisco in 1882? Q.—Wht was the into jail for? A.—I for about six hours. Q.—You say you Yes, sir. Q.—And you lived there until when? A.—I came back here again in the latter part of 1883. Q.—And where did you go to then, did you live here? A. —I lived here from 1884 until 1889, and being back and forward between here and San Frandsco at times. Q.—When you were in San Francisco, were you in the employ of Liebes & Company? A.—That is since 1890; not continually, 20 40 5Q 60 432 (Alex. McLean—Cross.) Q.—What was the business of that firm? A.—They were in the fur seal business, buying and selling furs. Q.—Were they in the business of catching seals? A.—They were some years ago, yes. Q.—Were they when you were in their employ? A.—At first, yes sir. Q.—In what year? A.—In 1890 and 1891. Q.—Whom did they represent? A.—They represented themselves. Q.—Anybody else? A.—I cannot sa3', I am not sure. Q.—Who were they agents for? A.—They were their own- agents at that time. Q.—Were they agents for any company? A.—That might be. Q.—You do not know anything about that? A.—No, sir, I did not know all their business. Q.—How long were you in their employ? A.—I was in their employ probably about three years. Q.—Why did you leave them? A.—I worked for another firm there. Q.—That is not an answer to my question. Why did yon leave them? A.—Well, I suppose I left them probably to better myself. Q.—Did you go to them and say "I am going to leave you," or did they say to you "You had better leave"? A.—No, sir. Q.—-You were not dismissel? A.—No, sir. Q.—It is not correct to say that you were? A.—No,- sir, and I can prove it. Q.—Now, then we have got you down to 1884, and then you stated where you went later on. Now, up to 1884 what were »you doing for these men. You were not working for them a-j early as 1884 at all. A.—Which men? Q.—Liebes & Company? A.—No, sir. Q.—Y'ou began there in 1890? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was your actual emplo3Tnent with them? A.— Master of a vessel. Q.—What kind of a vessel? A.—A sealing vessel. Q.—What was the name of that vessel? A.—The "James Hamilton Lewis." Q.—Were you in any otheT vessel? A.—I left them after I was in the "Lewis," that is, I transferred to another company. Q.—Now, 1 want to come to 1883. What were you employed at in that year? A.—I was emplo3'ed sealing and walrussing. Q.—Was that the first year you hunted? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is the first year you ever went sealing? A.— The first year I ever went sealing was in 1883. Q.—And then you went hunting seals and walrusses? A. —Ytes, sir. Q.—Chiefly walrusses, I believe? A.—Yes, sir, but we were prepared for seal hunting. Q.—That was the first time that 3'our experience in sealing begins? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And your knowledge therefore cannot compare with that of a man like Captain Warren who has been at the> sealing business ever since it commenced? A.—1 do not know, I suppose you will have to judge for 3'ourself. Q.—I am judging for myself. You had no experience up to 1883? A.—No, sir, no practical experience. Q.—You did not know where the seals were to be caught? A.—I did know where the seals were to be caught. Q.—But only from heresay? A.—Yes. Q.—But you knew nothing about the fine tricks of the trade? A,—No, sir, IO 20 30 40 50 60 433 (Alex. McLean—Crost Q.—Y'ou know nothing about how the proaclie•el? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you go to the Behring Sea in 1883? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How long were you in the Sea that year? A.—From June to August. Q.—And you were in the ship "San Diego?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—An American ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what part of the Behring Sea did you go to? A.— In various parts. Q.—How long did you say you were in? A.—From June to August. Q.—Looking for walrusses most of the time? A.—Walrusses and seals. Q.—What were you looking foi most? A.—Walrusses in the early part of the season and seals in the latter part. Q.—When did you begin to look for seals? A.—On the 20th of July. Q.—I am just going to have a little look at that book of 3'ours now. Y'ou took that answer from that book. This book purports to be what? A.—That is for my own private information. Q.—When did yofi make it up? A.—I made it up at diffe: ent times. Q.—You have an entry here, "Sailing in Behring Sea in 1S83, the number of seals caught, the days they were caught, the latitude anel the longitude." That is right, is it? A.— Yes, sir, it is supposed to be. Q.—I want a straight answer to this question. When did 3'ou make/these entries? A.—I cannot say as to the exact date, or probably the year, but they haye been made some years back. Q.—Will you swear you made them in 1883? A.—N'o, sic. Q.—Will you swear you made them in 1884? A.—-No, sir. Q.—Will .vou swear you made them in 1885? A.—Probably in 1885. Q.—Why did you make them "probably in 1885?" A.— Because I had that book in TS85 and made entries in it, and I believe this is one of the first entries I put in. Q.—You probably made them in 1885? A.—From other books, I did. Q.—What other books? A.—Books that I used to keep records in. Q.—Do you mean to say that 74 is a correct statement in this book? A.—I believe it. Q.—Will 3'ou swear it is correct? A.—To the best of my knowledge, sir. Q.—Then these entries were not made at these dates? A. —No, sir. Q.—Y'ou have got not only the number of seals caught each da3' but the latitude and longitude where they were caught? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Where did you get that from? A.—I took the observations myself. Q.—Where did you put them down? A.—I put them down in a book. Q.—What book? A.—There was a log book. Q.—Who has got that log book? A.— The log book was left in the ship, I believe, and I took the private book of my own. Q.—When did yon leave the "San Diego?" A.—In 1883. Q.—You were only on her one year? A.—One year. Q.—The log was left there? A.—Left in the ship. Q.—And yet you have entries made here which could only come from the log and which vou did. not make until 1885. 28 »»a 434 I 10 20 30 40 60 (Alex. McLean—Cross.) Where did you get the log? A.—I had a private log of my own which I always kept at sea. Q.—Where is that log? A.—I destroyed that when I was making that book up. Q.—When was that? A.—When I am at sea I always make entries in a separate book, and at the end of the voyage I generally enter them in that book there. Q.—When did you destroy the old book? A.—I cannot exactly state when I did destroy it. Q.—Tell me why you destroyed it? A.—Because I did not want the book, I did not want to pack up too many books and that book there would answer my purpose. Q.—If you had the entries in the old book was not the old book as good as the new one? A.—I did not want to have eight or nine books. Q.—But you had the entry in the old book and you might have left it there? A.—I did not want to have that book. Q.—Why? A.—I did not want to take it around. Q.—As a matter of fact are the entries in this book right? A.—There may be some errors in that. Q.—How? A.—That is regarding the dates and probably in adding up the total amounts. Q.—Will you swear that this book is true as to items? A. —Some of the dates and some of the total catches might be wrong. Q.—I do not refer to the total catches at all, I ask you about the items? A.—As near as possible*. Q.—I am going to come Jo this now. Take the year 1883, and I find here these entries of seals caught: 25th of July, 50 seals; 22nd, 60 seals; 26th, 87 seals; August 2nd, 70 seals; August 10th, 62 seals. That is the whole catch in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you mean to tell me that there were no days on which you caught less than that? A.—There might be an odd seal picked up occasional^, but that is as near correct as possible. Q.—Could you show me the log of any sealing ship from which it will appear that on certain days there were large catches caught like that and no small catches? A.—I cannot say. Q.—I will take another one for you. Take your entries, here for 1884. You have the same thing in your book I suppose. Here are the catches: 19, 33, 58, 53, 69, 168, 20, 45, 107, 146, 131, 200, 101, 86, 83, 56, 58, not one small catch in the whole number. A.—Y'ou will find them in rotation there. Q.—YVhen you were putting down a correct statement of the number of seals caught per day, did you put down a statement of facts that is not correct? A.—All the seals I caught is in that book. Q.—Do you mean to say that you caught this number of seals on these days? A.—I believe so. There might be an odd seal caught in the evening and I would put it down in next day's catch. Q.—You were on the "Favourite" in 1886? A,—Yes. Q.—And there is no small catch entered there? A.—No small catch. Q.—As a matter of fact, will not the log of the "Favourite" sIiqw that you did make small catches that year? A.—I do not think there is any seal entr3' in the log of the "Favourite." Q.—Are you sure? A.—There may be, but I have not looked at the log for some years. Q.—As a matter of fact, is it possible that these seals were caught in Ihe1 wav vou put (hem down there? A.—It is possible. Q.—Will you swear it did take place? A.—There may be an odd seal that might be put from one day's catch to another. Q.—Is it substantially correct? A.—As near as possible, sir. Q.—Day by day? A. Day by day for the catches. I believe there are some of the catches that are marked for the io different days that do not correspond with this l k. there was a mistake in taking them down. Q.—Taking them down from what? A.—From another book. Q.—From what book did you make the mistakes? A.— The amount of seals caught with the different headings. Q.—Will you swear that this book substantially agrees- with the log? A.—There may be some errors in the day, but the latitude and longitude agrees with the log. Q.—Does the number of seals agree with the log? A.— Yes, sir, to the best of my knowlc Q.—For. each day? A.—Yes. There may be an error, have not compared them lately. Q.—I want to go through the whole business with you and see if there will be any mistake. You have what purports to be a statement of the catches made in the years 1883,1884, 585, 1886,1887, 1888 and 1889? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I put the general question to you: Is there a small day's catch shown in any one of them? A.—Probably not. The reason for that is when, we make a small day's catch I did not enter that. I did not want to make too many differ-.. ent entries hi my book. If I picked up one or two seals, I held that over to the next morning. Q.—Was not that put in your little book originally? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Entered in your little book day by day? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When did you draw the line, when you entered it on to the next day's catch? A.—When I was putting down the position in that book. Q.—Had you any interest in the "San Diego"? A.—-Wo. sir. Q.—None at all? A.—None. Q.—Will you tell me what reason you had for keeping a statement of what she caught? A.—It interested me because I intended to follow the business. Q.—Did the log of the "San Diego" show the catch? A.— I cannot exactly say if it did, but I kept a record of the catch, and I also kept the ship's log. I am not sure if we entered the position and the catches in the log or not. Q.—Had you- any object in not entering in the log the num- ' ber of seals that you caught? A.—Yes. Q.—What was your object? A.—Because if you have a log book and you make pretty good catches your hunters or crew may get hold of the book and lake iIn- positions out of it, and going on board another ship thev would give it to them. Q.—Why did you not want to have that done? A.—Because it might interfere with my business, I wanted to go there myself again, and I did not want to have too many ve*ssels go around me in the sealing grounds. Q.—You took some stock in the posit ion then? A.—Yea, sir. Q.—You actually took trouble not to let other people know it? A. Yes. Q.—Did you follow that out after the first year or two, nc entering the seals you caught on any particular day in youi log. A.—I might have made some entries. ^Alex. McLean:—Cross.) Q._Did you not carry out ^^^Pg^^P tries in your log for that very reason? A At tim 1 MM ■ Itl?^^' A 188. You were in her that year? A.— Yes, !*ir- t] t ear in ^^Wfci^WsU if 1 oaVeNow Mr McLean, I want you to look at lhattbook-1 is ?u7pos7d to be the catch of the "Favourite," ts it not? A. _Q.—In the year 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Mr Dickinson :-What book are you referring to? Mr. Peters:-! am HB £ enlorsedtlnt & ;0S SSg^nt^a^nerS inflation by Captain 20 Alexander McLean." 1 SM^H to refer to the date, W^^f™" Sea, and tell L what is the entty_there^ ^^ ftgg Q.—Bead the whole entry. A.—iteming w , tude 54.50 longitude 160.6. HHH h0ok a copv of Q_Now, I ^^"^h^SpSr&^ar, and I what purports to be the log, oltnatsn i ^ . want to see .^^f^.JS'tJre' A-It is 54J50 here. 30 July 9th, position 55.58, is that- t^e a Q'^Wr,^t^w°enhavUeit167^5. How many seals there? n And here we nave it j.ui.-">. -"■ %«^l s^'HhI I p Q.—Give your position there? A.—Latituae , tude 186 .8. latitude 55 18, and longitude 45 Q.—The position here is, latituae do -x°'ff , |v^i anything about that book. A.-One hun- Q_What is the number of seals tnere. drQl-And the number of seals here is 113. Now, then you J*e no seals caught on the W h? J^^ so, | rHowrvoTacc'olnrior ttft? I 5L this ent vt- ■ , _ „-£ -fh/a mo- find this entry in 50 Q.—How do you a.rouni nut—. - ««.aTOurite" and whit purports to be a copy otethe lg«^J*™£ caught I find that on the lOtn of July in such a A _ 78 seals and I find that in your book sne caug . Not on the 10th. caught 100 seals? A.— be added up the day afterwards Q—Y'ou would count .8 seats Sir' .. „ -ait,, T>o+^i-p? 60 'one" or "two?" v -No, Mr. Dickinson:-What are you reading from, Mr. Peters:- E^t Wl^SgB catch in Behring Sea, and it purports to be the log of this same vessel. Mr Dickinson:-Have you not got the log of the vessel there? I think you have the original log. Mr. Peters:—Y'es, I believe I have it, I did not know at the time. io The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Why did you not quote from the original log, Mr. Peters, if yoii have it under your hand. Mr. Peters:—I will quote from it. To the witness: Q-—We will see how the log works out. On July the 9th, 1S86 your position in that little book you have*, is latitude 54? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I have now what is supposed to be the original log; kepi on that ship in 1886. Will you sa3' if your position in the original log agrees with the position in that book? A.— The position agrees very closely with that. Q.—With what? A.—There may be a difference but it is not much. Q.—I hand you the original log of the "Favourite" for the 3'ear 1886, and I ask you the question, if on the 9th of July, the position in your book is different from the position as stated in the log? A.—Not quite the same, sir. Q.—Why was it not quite the same, what object hael yon in putting it not quite right? A.—The original log book is rept for noon, and this little book is kept as closely as possible to where the seals were caught in, it might make a difference of some miles during the day. Q.—What was your position on the 8th, on the 9th, and on the 10th, as marked in the log? A.—On the 10th it is 55 .58: on the 9th it is'55 .45; on the 8th it is 55 .30. Q.—Did you ever get into latitude 54 at all during that time? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On these days? A.—In August. Q.—No. But on these three days I have named? A.— Not that I know of, if I did, it would be in the log book. Q.—Your log shows that you were not in 54 on any of these three days, and that being the case, explain to me why you put 54 in your little book? A.—Well, that might be an error in taking that down, of course. Q.—Will you swear it was an error? A.—Y'es, sir, I will swear it was an error, and that is was not done intentionally either. Q.—Is there any statement in the log as to how many seals you caught on the 9th or 10th, or the 11th? A.—No, sir, because I did not enter my catches In this log book. Q.—Now, then, following on that same line with your log book, look at the next dav, the 11th, as shown there? A.— Yes. Q.—What is your position according to your little book on the 11th? A.—55 .48. Q.—What is the position in the log? A.—55 .37. Q—What is the longitude there in 3'our little book? A. 167 .8 Q.—What is the log? A.—167 .7. Q.—When diel you make up your mind to make that alteration? A.—I made the alteration as near as possible as to the ground I took the seals on. Q.—AVhen did you put down that position in your little book? A.—It was put down a little later on. 433 (Alex. McLean:—Cross.) Q.—What is the next entry vou have in your little book? A.—The 12th. Q.—What was your position? A.—55 .37. Q.—And your longitude? A.—168 .8. Q.—That does not agree here either? A.—Probably not. That there, is the position for noon. Q.—How many seals did you catch that day? A.—113. io Mr. Dickinson:—I must object to your putting questions to the witness from this book, which is simply a report of the agents, and which is not at all any authentic document. Mr.Peters:—I won't ask that question of the witness then. I will leave that question for a moment, and I will ask the witness this. To Witness: Q.—Did any other person have a statement as to the num- 20 ber of seals you got and the days you caught them, except yourself? A.—Not except myself, sir. At the end of the voyage, of course,-1 might give an account of the total. Q.—Of the total ? A. — Y'es, sir. Q.—But did any other person have a statement of the number of seals that were caught on each particular day on the "Favourite" except you?. A.—Not to my knowledge. Q.—And if the number of seals that were caught day by day in your vessel have got into the hands of either government it must have come from you? A.—Yes. I cannot say 3° exactly, it may have come and it may not. Q.—Did you or did you not give information on that point, and when? A.—I cannot say. Q.—Did you give it? A..—I cannot say. Q.—Did you give it some years ago? A.—I might have done so. $Ws a long time ago, and I can not recollect if I have. Q.—Do you swear you don't recollect? A.—Yes, sir, I don't recollect. Q.—Were you asked for the information? A.—I cannot say if I have been. I don't remember being asked nor giv- 4° ing the information. Q.—If any person gets the information that on the 11th of July in that year— The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—One moment, Mr. Peters. That is~hot quite the same line of examination that was conducted on the other side.' It seems to me the other side put these similar questions in a different way. The witnesses were asked by counsel on the other side in a general way, if they gave such information and so forth. 5° Mr. Peters:—I am not referring to any information about this transaction at all. I have a statement here in this book which must have come from somewhere, and I" want to find out where the statement is supposed to have come from. I do not want to go into particulars of the case at all. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I merely suggest that you are putting that question in a contingent form. Go Mr. Peters:—I merely ask the witness, you Honour, the question as to whether he gave such and such information to such and such an officer. I will put the question in the form which your Honour suggests. To the witness: Q.—Did you as a matter of fact give a statement to any person as to the number of seals that 3'ou caught in the 439 (Alex. McLean:—Cross.) "Favourite" in the year 1886 and the days you caught them onv y_—i might have given the total amount, but I do not think I have given the position of the ship. I may have, but I am not sure. Q.—Do you remember when it was, you gave whatever information "you did give? A.—No, sir. I do not. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I did io not mean to say, Mr. Peters, that yon could not ask the witness as to whether he gave specific information as to particular days. Mr. Peters:—May it please your Honour, what I wish to get at is this, I have a certain statement here and it is simply with a view of seeing whether this statement is a correct one or not, that I ask those questions. If it is a correct statement I want to know how it differs from this book. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Fol- 20 lowing the proof used, here, you are entitled to ask him whether he stated that to any person, and you can draw your deduction from it. Y'ou can ask him whether he caught such a number of seals on a certain daA-, but you are not entitled to go into details. That is according to the lines of evidence taken before the Commissioners. By Mr. Peters:— Q.—Do you know a Mr. Townsend? A.—I do not know. I don't remember of seeing him, I might have, but I do not 3° remember. Q.—You do not remember of any person coming up here as far back as a year or two ago, and asking you to give information, and you giving a statement as to what purported to be the log of your ship in 1886? A.—What year was that that 3'ou say he got this information? Q.—It would be 1894 or 1895. A.—Whereabout was that? 0-—I presume here or in San Francisco? A.—I cannot exactly say. Q.—Now, Mr. McLean, surely you can remember? A.—I 4° met different men tlfff wanted to get a statement and information regarding sealing, but I do not know if ii was Mr. Townsend or not. Show me the statement I made, and I may be able to remember it. Q.—Did you or did you not make a statement, giving the details? A.—I cannot exactly say. I made a statement in San Francisco, but to whom I am not certain. That must be three or four years ago. Q.—Did you in 1895? A.—I do not recollect making any statement in 1895? 5 Q.—Did you make one statement, or more than one to any official person? A.—I know of making one statement. Q.—Did you make more than one? A.—1 cannot 8.13- exactly if I have or not. Q.—In giving the statement, whatever it was. what did you get your information from? A.—From my own exper- 60 Q.—But when you came to details, from what book did you get it. A.—I must have given it from my own book if I gave any. Q-—Hid you, give it from'that book? A.—I must have, if I have given it. I do not think I have given it from this book. Q-—From what book did you give it then? A.—I do not think I got it from any of these books, that is, I don't think I produced the books. Q-—I suppose you did not give the details from memory? A.—Very likely, but I am not certain. 440 (A lex. McLean:—Cross.) Q.—Do you mean to say it is possible for you to have given the position of your vessel from memory? A.—I do not think so. Q.—Or the number of seals caught in any one day? .A.— No, sir. I could not have given the position of the ship or the number of seals from memory. Q.—In fact you could not have given anything from memory? A.—Except the numbers of the total catch. Q.—And except, the numbers of the total catch you could not have given anything from memory? A.—No, sir. Q.—You have in that book an entry with regard to the drip "San Diego" that you were in in 1883? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know any of the men that were on the "San Diego?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Can you remember any of them? A.—Yes, sir, I remember some of them. Q.—Will you just tell me some of them? A.—There was one of the name of Bill Thomas. Q.—Is that the onty entry you have ? A.—Showing what I caught in that year. Q.—In 1883? A.—Yes. Q.—That is the only entry you have in existence? A.— That is the only entry I have in existence. Q.—And where were the seals in the "San Diego" delivered to, when she came from her voyage? A.—They were delivered to T. Lubbe. Q.—You delivered them? A.—No, sir, the master of the ship did. Q—Did she just deliver her own seals? A.—Her own seals, I believe. Q.—And no more? A.—Not that I know of. Q.—Then Mr. Lubbe, he would know what number of seals you delivered would he not? A.—Yes, sir, he ought. Q.—And he would have it in his boks? A.—Y'es, sir, by producing his books he ought to know the exact number of seals we gave to him. Q.—You have not looked at the books? A.—No, sir, I have seen his books, but I never went through them. Q.—Now, give me that little book again. We will have this little book for a moment. Will you be kind enough to state again the position you were in on the 12th of July, 1886? A.—This should be the position; about 55 .37, that is where the seals were caught and taken in. Q.—And longitude 167 .8? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, look at that and see in the year 1885 on that same day, what was your position? A.—My position was latitude 55 .46 longitude 168 .30. Q.—How far apart are these two positions about? A.— This is on the 12th of July? Q.—--Yes. A.—There would be nine miles difference of latitude and probably about 22 miles difference of longitude. Q.—What would be the actual difference as the crow flies? A.—About 20 miles. Q._Take the 15th of July, 1896, and say what was your position? A.—Latitude 55 .25, longitude 167 .57. Q.—i 9ee you cannot get the same day exactly in 1885, but taking between the 12th and.the 18th of July, 1885, how far away were you from the same position? A.—The distance will be close onto 60 miles. Q.—That will be the furthest? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Compare any day in August that you like, take the first of August, we will say, how does your position in 1885 compare with your position in 1886 on the 1st of August. A — It would be about 22 miles difference. 44 i fAlex. McLean:—Cross.) io 20 30 40 <;o 63 for the fact, Captain McLean, why it lave got pretty near, the same spot in ?o over the same Q.—Can you accous was thai 3-0U seem to the same year? A.—Do you ask me why Q.—Yes? A.—Because I used to want ground. Q.—And you were catching seals there? A.—Yes, I caught them before and if I did not get seals there, I would go further along. Q.—But you did find them before? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—And you found them in the same quantities, did you not; perhaps better in 1886 than in 1885? A.—Yes, sir, in 1886 I found more seals on that day. Q.—And all through the year didn't you find it better? A.—Y'es, sir, of course, in 1886 I made a pretty good catch in July. Q.—And you got some seals in August, too? A.—Yes. I got some in August. Q.—Takiug all the entries of the position of your ship in the year 1885 is it not correct that you were sealing in 1886 pretty much near the same ground as in 1885? A.—Well, in 1885, I made a pretty fair catch, and I thought I would go over th" same ground again and seal where I did well in 1885. Q.—Then you did place a value on the position of the ship? A.—That is the reason I kept that in this book. Q.—And you followed that out successfully for two years, did you not? A.—Iu 1885 and in 1886. (J.—Did you go on the same ground in 1887? A.—Yes. Q.—Why? A.—Because I expected to find seals there. Q.—Did you find them? A.—Yes. Q.—And you hunted in the same grounds in 1887? A.— Not in the same position, Q.—But practically did you hunt over the same ground in 1887 as you did in 1885 and 1886? A.—Not altogether, I believe in 1S87 I went a little to the westward, and probabty to the eastward, I never confined myself to any certain place. Q.—Just let me see how correct that is. The last day's sealing you made in 1887, you caught 146 seals, according to this little book? A.—Yes. Q.—And your position was latitude 54..40 longitude 169, and in 1886 on the very same day how far were you from that same place? A.—Probably about a hundred miles. Q.—On that particular day? A.—Y'es, sir, farther to the westward. Q.—Now, there is another peculiarity about this little book, and I want to point it out to you. You are swearing to this book? A.—Yes, sir, as near as possible it is right. Q.—What is the last day you fished in Behring Sea in 1886 A.—I believe that book will show it. Q.—Well, what do you say now? A.—I think it was the 19th of August. Q.—And in 1887? A.—The 23rd. Q.—And in 1888? A.—I cannot exactly say without referring to the book. Q.—And in 1888, don't mind your book, I ory now? A.—Well, it would be within a 20th, Q.—Would you be surprised to learn that your book states that you made the last cate-h on every one of these years on the 19th of August? A.—I believe on three of them. Q.—That is only a coincidence, is it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1886 on the 19th of August, in 1887 on the 19th of August, and in 1888 on the 19th of August? A.—Ye*s, sir. Q.—Will you swear that is correct, too? A.—Yes, sir. That is as near corree-t as I can place it. want your mem- few davs of the 442 (Alex. McLean:—Cross.) Q.—Would that be shown by your log? A.—1~ will be shown by my log when I left the sea. It was shortly after that date. The log wil not show the positions in Behring Sea. Q.—You were on the "Mary Ellen" in 1888 and this is your log book, I believe for that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Strange to say it does not give your position? A.— io No, sir, not in the Behring Sea. Q.—It gives no information at all as to where you were? A.—No, it just gives information regarding the weather in •Behring Sea. Q.—Then it is correct for me to say that all the time you were in Behring Sea your log book does not state the position in the log book? A.—Not in my log. Q.—Not in your log? A.—Not in my log. Q.—I can" understand why you did not put the number of seals in your log book, but I want you to explain why you 20 did not put the position of your ship in the log book? A.— For various reasons. Q.—What were they? A.—In the first place I did not want my crew to get a hold of my books and take my position out of the books. Q.—You did not want your crew to know? A.—No, sir. Q.—Could not you keep 3'our log book awav from the crew as well as anything else? A.—I kept some things locked up but it is not usual to keep the log book locked up on board ship. 30 Q.—Now, take the year 1888, there is your log book, and show me what elay you left Behring Sea in that year? The witness had not answered the question when the Commissioners rose.- The Commissioners then rose. Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, Between Great Britain and the United States of America Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 14, 1896- At 10:30 the Commissioners took their seats. Cross-examination of Alexander McLean continued bv Mr. Peters. Q.—Captain McLean, you produce several books here and I just wish to ask you about them. Here is the log of the "Favourite" for the 3-ears 1894 and 1895, is it not? A.— Yes, sir. . Q.—They were produced here by you, were they? A.— go They were got from me. Q.—As a matter of fact who kept that log? A.—I kept that log. Q.—Yourself? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Is that in your writing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That log was kept by you and has been in your custody? A.—Y'es. sir. Q.—Up till lately? A.—Up till lately. Q.—And since it was kept by you? A.—Y'es, sir. IO 20 30 40 SO 60 443 (Alex. McLe*an:—Cross.) Q.—Take the log of the schooner "Favourite" for 1886, who kept that log? A.—I kept that log. Q.—Is that in your writing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Has that been in your custody till lately? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Take the log of the "Mary Ellen" for 1887, who kept that log? A.—I kept that log. sir. Q.—Is it in your writing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The whole of it? Just look and see, I want you to be sure. A.—I was master of the "Mary Ellen" at the time and then I kept this log. Q.—And that is you log? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Take the log of the "Mary Ellen" for 1888, who kept that log. A.—I kept the log for 1888, sir.. Q.—That is your writing also? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Has that log been in your custody until lately? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Take the log of the "Mary Ellen" for 1889? A.—Part of her log was kept by the mate and the latter part was kept by me. *Q.—Up to what page was it kept by the mate? * A.—May 4th, 1889. Q.—On what page of the book is that? A.—Page 62. Q.—From May 4th it was kept by you ? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was that a Behring Sea year? A.—Yes, sir, a Behring Sea year. Q.—So that the part connected with the trip to Behring Sea was kept by you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now are those the only logs that you kept for these years of these vessels? A.—Yes, sir, for these vessels, they were the ship's logs. Q.—Did any other person keep any other logs of these vessels during these years? A.—Not that I am aware of. Q.—And these logs have been in your possession from the time they were kept up to about how long ago? A.—Till very latety. Q.—Within three weeks? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—No other person had them in their possession? A.— Not during that time—not to my knowledge. They might have seen my books, a person might have occasion to see them, but not that I know of. Q.—Now, Mr. McLean, if I can find a publication which contains the exact information that is in one of these logs, can you imagine any other source it could come except from that log? A.—I cannot say, it is pretty hard to say what source it could come from. Q.—Can you imagine any other source where the information could come from—for instance, information giving the position and the dates from day to day of one of these vessels, just as it is in one of these logs. Where could that information have been obtained except from the log? A.—Is it exactly the same as it is in these logs? Q.—Yes, sir. A.—They might have got a copy of my log in some way while it was in my possession. Q.—You mean to say that it must have come log? A.—I cannot exactly say that because I if it did or not. Q.—Where have you kept these logs? A.—I kept them sometimes on board the ship at sea ami sometimes on shore. Q.—Did you give any person a copy of that log or of any of them? A.—Not that I remember of. Q.—Do yon know of any person having taken a copy? A.— No, I cannot say that I know of any person that has a copy of any of i'ny log books. from your do not know 444 (Alex. McLean:—Gross.) Q.—Now you stated that before you were in these vessels at all, that in the year 1883 you were on board the ship "San Diego?" A.—Yes, sir, Q.—On a walrusing trip? A.—Hunting and walrusing. Q.—And you have a book which shows that in that year you got 329 seals in the Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you tell me what became of those seals when you came to Victoria? A.—Those seals were sold by the master in Victoria. Q.—To whom? A.—To Mr. T. Lubbe. Q.—You sold them to T. Lubbe? A.—The master of the ship did. ■ Q.—But you did not yourself? A.—No. Q.—Do you know that of 3'ourself? A.—That is the information I received from the master of the ship. Q.—At the time? A.—At the time, yes, sir. Q.—That was in the vear 1883, was it? A.—In the fall of '83. Q.—And you had 329 seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And how many walruses? A.—I cannot say as to how many walruses we had—we did not have any—we had some ivory. Q.—Did you kill any walruses? A.—No, sir—we might lave killed one or two. Q.—If it should turn out, Mr. McLean, that you did not bring that number of seals to Mr. Lubbe in that year, what would you say? A.—Well, there might be a mistake in the 30 total. Q.—If it should turn out that you did bring them there, but that they were brought to Mr. Lubbe in 1882, what would you say? You had some seals brought by the "San Diego" in 1882? A.—Yes, sir, I think so. Q.—Who by and how many? A.—I do not know how many there were in 1882 because I was not on boarel the ship. Q.—If it should turn out that the exact amount of seals which you mention as being brought in 1883 were brought in 1882, what would you say? A.—It would be very strange if 40 they were brought in 1882 because I was on board the ship in 1883. Q.—It would not quite agree with the little book, wouhl it9 A.—No, sir, it would not. Q.—Just another instance; I did not quite catch your answer when Mr. Dickinson was examining you the other day. You have in this book an account which purports' to be the seals caught in 1887? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is to say, any person looking at that would say that that is the amount of seals caught in the vessel in which 5° you were in 1887, would the3' not? A.—It might be to a person looking at it in that way, but the total amount is not correct. Q.—That is what you say? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And looking at the page of the book itself, that is what it would appear to be? A.—It might appear that way to you, but not to me. Q.—On the face of the book it looks like that? A.—It might to you, but not to me. Q.—As a matter of fact now we will take these entries for June, they are as follows: June 2, 151 seals; June 3, 44 seals; June 4, 28 seals; June 6, 95 seals; June 7, 125 seals; June 8, 197 seals; June 10, 172 seals; June 11, 38 seals. As a matter of fact none of these really were taken in 1887 ? A.—They were taken in 1886 by the schooner "Mary Ellen" and I took the positions and places then in that book so that I could refer to them. I wanted to have the positions of where I caught 1he seals. It was considered pretty good 445 10 20 30 40 SO Go (Alex. McLean:—Cross..). ground, and I might want to go there again. That is the first catch ever made on the Fair Weather ground in 1886. q.—Where did you get the log of the "Mary Ellen"? A.— From the master of the ship. Q.—Who was he? A.—Dan McLean. Q.—So that is the explanation of that? A.—Yes, sir. for the month of June, 1886. Q.—It is a fact then that 3rou put in there so many seals, apparently as caught in 1887? Now when you came to make up the total catch of 3,525 seals in 1887, will you tell me when that was made up and wiry it was made that way? A. —It should be expressed differently in the book, I understood ii sufficiently for my own information. Q.—The entry at the bottom of the page is as follows? "Total, 3,525 seals, 1887. A. McLean, schooner 'Mary Ellen,' Victoria, B. C." A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Will you tell me why you totalled up these seals which were not caught in 1887 so as to make them appear as if they were caught in 1887? A.—I did not wish to make it appear as if they were cahght in 1887, and I just entered them up in that way. Q.—That is your explanation for having totalled them up in that way? A.—I guess that I had all the positions down and number of seals for the different years and I added them up. Did I not give the total for the "Mary Ellen" for 1887 on Saturday last? It amounted to 2,400 and some odd. I kept that book for my own information and I never expected it to appear in court. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—There is also a pencil mark there "18S6." Who put that there? Mr. Peters:—That was a memorandum he was making up in court. I will ask him that question. Q.—I want you to explain what those words are written in pencil? A.—June, 1886. Q.—When did you make that entry in pencil there? A.— When I was adding it up in court here on Friday afternoon, I think. It was just to show that these belonged to 1886. Q.—And also these figures "2496." These were put in the book lately. A.—Yes, sir, that was Saturday afternoon when I was making up the dates for the catch of 1887. Q.—Do you notice at the bottom of this same page I am referring to, the page referring to 1887, there was a word written there which you scratched out? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—What was that word? A.—"Master." Q.—When did you scratch that out? A.—Some time ago. Q.—How long ago? A.—I cannot say exactly. Q.—But I want you to state exactly, how long ago is it that you scratched that word out? A.—Probably a month or probably two months. Q.—Tell me what object you had a^month or two months ago in scratching an3^thing out of this book? A.—When I received a letter from Mr. Bodwell at San Francisco thought probably I might require to be here, and then in looking over my books I found that would be a mistake. Q.—As soon as you heard you were likely to give evidence you commenced scratching things out of that book? A.- I scratched out what I thought would not be correct. I scratched out the word "master" bee*ause I was not master. Mr. Dickinson:—You scratched out the word "master" un- eler the words "Alexander McLean"? A.—Yes. Mr. Peters:—Did 3'ou scratch anything else out of the book? A.—I think there has been a paper pasted on the book. 446 IHIIIIil (Alex. McLean:—Cross.) Q.—I did not mean that. In the first page under the heading "1883" did you scratch something out? A.—Yes, sir, I scratched something out there, I scratched "master" off. Q.—You had yourself down as master of the "San Diego" ? A.—Yes, sir, there was a captain on board, but I did the navigating, so that actually I was the practical master. Q.—Orgiinally in this book for 1883, when in the schooner "San Diego" your entry was "A. McLean, master of the 10 schooner 'San Diego'? A.—-Yes, sir. Q.—And that entry remained in that book for how long a time? A.—Till probably about a month or six weeks ago. Q;:—Had you any object in scratching it out? A.—Yes. Q.—What object? A.—Because I was not the actual master at the time, I was the practical master. I acted as navigator and kept the ship's log book. Q.—That was incorrect and you struck it out? A.—Yes, sir, there was a master that was on board the ship and he cleared her from the Custom House and entered her. 20 Q.—There was another entry I wanted you to explain—for the year 1887. You have an entry made here running on the face of the page representing the year 1887 "Add 30 miles to longitude." What do you mean by that? A.—I found after my position was taken that my chronometer was out 30 miles.. Q.—Out 30 miles? A.—Yes, sir, 30 miles or 2 minutes. Q.—When did you find that out? A.—1 found that out later on in the season^ that is after I made my catch of seals, when I got an observation and could take it properly. * 0-—When did you make that entry? A.—That entry was made when I was making up this log. Mr. Peters:—Have you the log of the "Mary Ellen" for 1886? Mr. Dickinson:—Unless it is in one of those books. Mr. Warren:—We have not it. Mr. Peters:—(To witness): Q.—Now will you tell me who was the captain' of the "San Diego" in 1883? A.—Capt. Cathcurt cleared her from the Custom House. Q.—How do you spell that word? A.—C-a-t-h-c-u-r-t. Q.—And you sailed from San Francisco at what time of that year? A.—I cannot say the exact date, but it might have been in March probably. Q.—And you went along the coast to Behring Sea? A.— Along the coast at first. Q.—And then to Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And came back to Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you left 3rour crew at Victoria? A.—I am not sure if all the crew were left here or not. The most, of it was probably left or it might be all of them. Q.—I am now going to take you to another matter. You have told us that there is a great difference between canoes and boats, and that you object to canoes with white men in them. As a matter of fact did you ever do any sealing with white men in canoes? A.—I have had white men to go out in canoes from the vessel, but I have not made a general practice of it. Q.—Then you have had no experience in that respect? A. —No, sir, not with white men in canoes, and I never knew of any white men sealing in canoes that made a success of it. Q.—There are a good many things you do not know. A.— There are quite a lot of things I do not know. Q.—What do you call a good day's hunting for a boat? A. —In a good day's sealing, some times they ge't up as high as 50 or 55 seals; that is a pretty large day's catch. SO Go Go (Alex. McLean:- Q.—How man3' days did you know a boat to catch that number? A.—Very few. Q.—Would 30 seals be a good da3'? A.—Yes, sir, an extra good day. Q.—And if you found canoes on board a certain vessel manned by white men were catehing as much as 30 or 40 seals a day, would you think that pretty fair? A.—Yes, sir, 10 pretty fair. Q.—Just as good as an Indian could do? A.—It might be. If it proved a success it is strange they do not follow it up. Q.—If a vessel was seized you could not follow it up, could you? A.—No, but if I was going out again and found it successful I think I would try it again. Q.—All you know is that you did not try? A.—No, I do not approve of it. I do not think it would prove a success. Q.—But it proved in this case that it was? A.—It might have been in that case, but according to the catch you made 20 up to the day 3'ou were seized it did not look to prove very successful. Q.—And that depends on a great many circumstances as you say? A.—Y'es, sir, it does. Q.—On the number of canoes, the number of men, and al that sort of thing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now I want to take you to another matter. You stated that you had a great deal to do with the vessels? A. —Yes, sir, I had some. Q.—Tell me how many vessels you specially paid for the 30 outfitting of? A.—Of course I did not actually pay, but I made out the bill, what was required for the ship in fitting it out. Q.—What do you mean by saying that you made out the bills? A.—Did you make out the bills that were wanted? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You mea-n that you did make out the bills for what you wanted for certain trips? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I want to know how many you made out? A.—I made up the bill for every vessel I had been on board of eixcept 4° the "San Diego" and "Mary Ellen" for 1887. Q.—That is two you did not make out? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—In 1883 you say you were on the "San Diego"? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Y'ou did not make out that bill, did you? A.—I did not make out her bills. Q.—In 1884 what vessel were you on? A.—The "Favourite." Q.—Did 3'ou make out the bills that year? A.—Yes, sir. 50 Q-—^ou made out the bills of what was required? A.— Y'es, sir. Q-—And in 1885 what ship were you in? A.—The "Favourite." Q — Have you the bills for 1884? A.—No, sir. Q.—You have not the accounts of what it would cost? A. —No, sir, the accounts were placed in the books. Q.—When did you see them? A.—I expect I must have seen them in 1884. Q.—You have not seen them since? A.—No, I think not, but of course I might have seen them since then. Q.—Do you know what you actually spent in the "Favourite" in 1884? A.—I cannot say as to the exact figures for 1884, but the books will show that. Q.—Now then I will take you to 1885. In what ship were you then? A.—In the schooner "Favourite." Q-—Did you order the- things that were required that year? A.—Yes, sir. 448 (Alex. McLean:—Cross.) Q.—Do you know what they amounted to? A.—I cannot say exactly what the amount is. Q.—Well, can you say approximately? A.—I could by figuring it, I could make up nearly the exact expense of thf vessel. Q.—But you cannot say from memory? A.—No, sir, not from memory. Q.—What vessel were vou in in 1886? A.—The "Favour ite." Q.—Did you make the bills out that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q,—Y'ou made out the bills for what was required that year? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Do you know what amount of money was spent? A. —I could not say as to the exact amount, but I could make up the ship's expense for the time she was out. Q.—Can you say how much there was spent approximately? A.—It would depend on the number of men on board the vessel—I could make out the statement. Q.—You are going to make a calculation I presume of 00 a man for so many months? A.—Yes, sir, on the way it averages. I could make out a general average. Q.—I will come to that in a minute and see where it will land you. That is the way you would make it up now if you figured it out? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Your calculation would depend on the correctness of your average of $100, say $10 a month for a man? A.—That is what I have found to be the average, and I have done so several times. Q.—And that is the way 3'ou would calculate it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1887 what vessel were you on? A.—I was out in the schooner "Mary Ellen." Q.—Did you make up the accounts for her? A.—I assisted in making up the accounts. Q.—Did you make out all the bills or did some one else do it? A.—I assisted in making them out. Q.—Can you tell us any more about her bills than you can about the others? A.—Well I Was on board the vessel. Q.—In 1888 where were you? A.—I was in the "Mary Ellen." Q.—Can you tell us any more about her bills than the bills of the others? A.—It runs about the same average. Q.—Do you remember the amount? A.—Not. the exact amount. Q.—Or within five or six or seven hundred dollars? A.— I could come closer than that to it. Q.—Well give us a shot at it. You know the "Marj- El- en," 3'ou know the number of men, you know the number of boats, and tell me from memory if you can. Within $700 1 will give you of what it costs. A.—She cost about $230 a month to run her for provisions. Q.—Give me the total of the trip? A.—It depends upon the number of months we were out. . In coming out we might lave some stores left from the voyage. Q.—Do you know how long yon were out? A.—I cannot say exactly how long we were out but the log book shows mt? : Mr. Peters:—It ought to show it but I do not know whether it eloes or not. To the witness:—I only want to see what your memory is in the matter. From your memory you have undertaken to tell us what ought to be put on board a ship? A.—Yes, sir, prctt3' closely. 449 (Alex. McLean—Cross.) i i 20 30 40 So 60 Q.—Now I will give you one or two items. You dc pilot bread on board a vessel don't you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What quantity? A.—A lit lie over a box or so average to each boat. Q.—That is always your custom? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—No matter whether you have Indians or white men on board? A.—There would be a difference with Indians. Q.—How much difference? A.—I used to trade with the Indians and sell them biscuits and provisions. Q.—How much difference would there be? A.—There would be quite a elifference. I would carry probably about six or seven boxes of the bread to give to Indians. Q.—That is what you have been in the habit of doing? A. Yes, sir, and the balance they would have to buy. Q-—That would make about 12 boxes you would carry al together? A.—Less than that. Q-—That is your usual custom? A.—Yes, sir, when first I went down the coast I used to give them from two to four biscuits a day when bunting. When not banting he would not get biscuits. He would have to buy them. Q.—We have this general statement from you that under no circumstances you would require more than 12 or 14 boxes of biscuits? A.—Well, you would require more than that if 3'ou did not have anything else to eat but biscuits. Q.—Of course you would, if you fed them on biscuits and water I do not know what the consequences would be; but you say that if you had meat and everything else you would not require so many biscuits, would you? A.—No, I should think not; we generally carry them in case of accident or something like that. We want to have them ready in case we were shipwrecked or anything like that. Q.—That is your general statement? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—There was a log kept on the "Favourite" for 1886? —Yes, sir. Q.—I wish to know from you whether that is a correct entry in the log under date of the 7th July , 1886. You refer to there being strong west winds and you say "the crew were restoring the hold and taking an inventory of the ship's provisions? Among other things I find 27 boxes of bread." Is that there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is pilot bread, I suppose? A.—Yes, sir. Q._What is that for? A.—That would be partly for the use of the crew and partly for sale to the Indians. Q.—So that you had been at sea from the 22nd of May and on the 7th July you had 27 boxes of bread on board? A.- Yres, sir. Q.—And you say that is pilot bread. A.—Yes, sir, I believe that is correct. Q.—I understood you to say a moment ago that under no circumstances whether with Indians or white men you would want more than 12 boxes? A.—12 boxes would be for the ship's use but 3-011 would carry more for sale to the Indians. Q.—Now this purports to be an entry in your log book and you say you found 27 boxes of bread there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—vVhat do yon say to that? A.—Part of that was for sale to the Indians. Q.—How many Indians had you on board? A.—Something like 20 or 22 Indians. Q.—Were you feeding them? the balance they would buy. own food on the vessel, such as fish, and would buy the balance from the ship. Q.—Were you not supplying them with bread? A.—Not all. 29 A.—Part feeding them and They carried some of their IO UI 450 (Alex. McLean—Cross.) Q.—Were you supplying them at all with bread? A.— Part. Q.—What part? A.—Some days I used to give them four biscuits a day and at times they would buy their bread from the ship. We used to sell them fresh bread as well Q.—Did they get bread from you? A.—Some days I would give them some and more days I probably would not. Q.—What was the rule? A.—There was no regular rule. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Do 1 understand that those Indians would buy the bread for any other purpose than to eat it? A.—They bought it for the purpose of eating it. We sold them biscuits and sugar and tea, and things like that. Mr. Peters:—Y'ou say that some of the Indians would buy biscuits? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And he would buy them to eat them? A.—Yes, sir. 20 Q-—You did not give them any at all? A.—If they made a good day's catch we would give them something extra. Q.—You had these biscuits on board for the purpose of feeding the crew on board whether they bought them or not? A.—Y'es, sir, and they were generally fed at that time in part. If tiwe was am' bread left over after the voyage they would buys whole box and take on shore with them. We kept it for the purpose of trade. Q.—Now the3' would not have a chance of taking that bread from off the ship and trade with until the voyage was 33 over? A.—They used to buy goods from the vessel. Q.—But on board ship they would not have a chance to do anything with the goods except to eat them? A.—That is all and at the end of the voyage they would buy what was on board the ship and take it ashore. Q.—But during the voyage they could not and would not buy anything except what they could eat? A.—Sometimes they might buy some boxes of bread on the way coming down or they might buy flour or something in the way of trade. Q.—Will you tell me what a sack of flour contains? A.— 4° Well there is about four sacks to the barrel. Q.—A barrel contains 200 pounds and that would be 50 lbs. to a sack. I believe for sealing purposes you always have the supply of flour put in sacks. A.—Y'es, sir." But sometimes we put sacks of flour into casks to keep it from getting damp. Q.—But for the purpose of stowing it away, as a rule you' carried it in sacks? A.—Some ships carried it in that way, but I have seen them put into large casks. -_ Q.—That is to say vou emptied the sacks into casks? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—No matter how you store it away. If you go to buy flour for a ship's use how do you buy it? A.—We buy it by the barrel. Q.—And your bill would appear as if so many barrels went onboard? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Although as a matter of fact you may have stored it on your ship in sacks or in casks? A.—Yes, sir. It generally comes on board in sacks and we put it in casks after- 60 wards. Q.—Now I And in 'his inventory that besides the bread you had on board the schooner at that time you also had 42 sacks of flour? A.—Y^es. sir. Q.—That is right is it? A.—Yes, sir, that would be cor rect, I guess. Q.—That would represent over 10 barrels of flour? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And that was the 7th of July? A.—Yes, sir. IJ 20 451 (Alex. McLean—Cross.) Q.—You told us something as to the quantity of sugar which you would take on board a vessel? Yes, sir. Q.—What quantity did you tell us day before yesterday you had taken? A.—About two barrels. Q.—Did you say that the day before yesterday? A.—I cannot exactly say? I said so many things it is pretty hard to get hold of all of them. I think I did state that it was 2 1-2 barrels of sugar. Q.—Was that what you said? A.—I think so. Q.—Would that be coreet? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What is the weight of a barrel of sugar? A.—A keg would weigh perhaps 200 lbs. Q.—And a barrel would weigh about 400 lbs? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—And your answer the other day was that you would put in about 2 1-2 barrels of sugar? A.—Yes, sir, and. that would make about 400 lbs. Q.—In this same inventoryl find that on the 7th July you had 5 1-2 kegs of sugar? A.—Yes, that is there. Q.—That would be how many pounds? A.—What I re- fered to was for a crew of 11 men but I had more than 11 men. Q.—You refer to 11 men and I refer to double that quantity of men when half the voyage was over; that would leave it about a crew of 11 men. A.—I left here in June. Q.—You left here in May, excuse me? A.—In May was it? Well the books will show the day. At the time we were trad 30 ing with the Indians and carried goods on board and probably they would want some advance before leaving the coast. Before we took the canoes on board probably the Indians might require to leave some provisions on shore to keep their families until their return and then we would go to work and supply them and give an advance of 10 or 15 dollars with the goods. Other times they might not require any and on that account we would have some goods on board the ship when we returned. We always had more than we required for trading purposes. Q.—That is your explanation? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you go to any Indian places that year that you are aware of? A.—I suppose we did to several places, my books will show that. Q.—Did you make the ordinary advance to the Indians? A.—Whatever was necessary. Q.—And notwithstanding that you had 5 1-2 kegs of sugar? A.—Some Indians might want to buy a canoe and I would advance them the goods or the cash to buy it. Q.—In addition to that I see that you had 2 1-2 barrels of beef on that da3r? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And a barrel and a half of pork? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is about right is it? A.—That would be right for the number of men we had. Q.—Leaving that" log, I want to gee something again. I want to see again how correct your statement about supplies is in this little book that you produce. You have a statement at the back of the book which purports to be "Hunting outfit of eight boats, 128 men, for nine months' voyage," does Co it not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is what it purports to be? A.—Yes, sir, that was made for the schooner "Bonanza." Q.—When? A.—In 1884. Q.—In 1884? A.—In 1894 rather I should say. Q.—And it shows the actual amount of stuff that you put on board her? A.—Yes. sir, the actual amount that went on board the ship. 40 50 (Alex. McLean—Cross.) .—Can you tell me when you made that up? A.—That made up in 1894 for the voyage, after the ship went to .—You made it yourself? A.—Yes, sir. .—It is in your handwriting? A.—Yes, sir. •That is what actually took place? A.—Yes, sir. .—Now, I want to come down to one item in this. You ; here an entry for 2,000 lbs. of sugar? A.—Yes, sir. -Did that go on board? A.—Yes, sir, that went on •d. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How long a vo3'age with how many men? A.—It is a voyage for eight boats and 28 men, and is for nine months' voyage. Q.—Does the book show whether they were white men or Indians? A.—They were white hunters By Mr. Peters:—It also shows, does it not, 20 barrels beef, and 10 barrels pork? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—And 150 sacks of flour? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And a large quantity of canned goods? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—One thousand eight hundred lbs. butter? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—And 500 pounds codfish? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And a large amount of other items, and these prices are according to the prices in San Francisco, are they not? You put in San Francisco prices when you were making up the bill? A.—Yes, sir, according to the San Francisco prices for 1894. Q.—Let me ask you this question: When you were making you calculations of about $100 a month, did you calculate at the San Francisco prices, or did you not? A.—I calculated at the San Francisco prices. Q.—-Are they higher or lower than Victoria prices? A.—I believe they would be higher at that time. There would be the difference of duty and freight up here. Q.—Were the±y higher or not? A.—I cannot say what 4° prices here were at that time. Q.—Then, sir, when 3'ou were making the calculation that it. would cost $10 per man per month, you were making a calculation on the basis of San Francisco prices? A.—San Francisco prices. Q.—You did not know the difference between the prices in San Francisco and Victoria? A.—Well, I did not know the exact figures then of what the prices were here. Q.—Then your calculations is founded upon a basis about which you did not know? A.—I have calculated on the basis of valuing the goods at the price in San Francisco. Another thing, in making out that statement, this vessel was owned b3' the Pacific Trading Company in San Francisco, and they owned six or seven other vessels. This vessel car- ied considerable supplies on board for the other vessels, and out at sea or in port, or wherever she was, some of these goods were delivered to the other ships. Q.—But vou made them out at San Francisco prices? A — Yes. Q.—Then according to San Francisco prices, you spent, as this book shows, $2,294.95 for groceries and provisions alone, did you not? A.—Yes, sir, for 28 men. But then there was more than was required for the 28 men, as part of this was intended for any of the other ships that should run short—T would suppty them. Q.—Then, this did not. represent only the outfit for one ship? A.—I carried more than would be sufficient for mv own use. Ba IO 20 40 So Go (Alex. McLean—Cross.) Q.—Answer this question. This, then, did not represent the fair cost of outfitting one vessel ? A.—It represented the fair outfitting of that: one vessel. Q.—And nothing else? A.—And in addition the extra supplies for any other ship. If a vessel wanted a barrel of beef or pork, I would let her have it. Q.—Now, you are not going to get out of this. I ask you this question: This book does not, therefore, state the fair cost of provisioning that vessePalone? A.—It was not put in intentionally for that. I put in the exact cost to that vessel when she left San Francisco that year. Q.—Having made the statement that it does not correctly represent it, will you led I me what object you had in putting in this heading to it: "Hunting outfit, eight boats and 28 men "for nine months' voyage?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was your object? A.—My object was to show what the ship's expenses were from the time she left San Francisco. Q.—To show to whom? A.—To show for myself. 1 wanted to see what the vessel would clear at the end of the voyage. Q.—Answer me this: Why did you not put the name of the vessel at the top of that statement in that book? A.—Is it not there? Q.—No, nor anywhere in it? A.—Her name is in that book for 1894, where she made her catch there. Q.—Perhaps it is. Her name is in that book, is it? A.— Her name, the schooner "Bonanza," is there. Q.—When did you put that there? A.—That was probably put there about three or four weeks ago—or it might be later. Q.—Now, what object had you in putting that name there; three or four weeks ago? A.—Because I was master of the ship and I did not enter it there. And I also added up that column that was not added up before. Q.—In the first place, both in the outfit account and with regard to the vessel, you omitted the name originally. Well, tell me why you put that in three or four weeks ago? A.— Because the column was not added up and I had forgotten it. Q.—Why did 3'ou put in this entry, "Alexander McLean, master "schooner 'Bonanza,' thEge or four weeks ago? A.— Because I was master, and it had not been placed there before. Q.—Why did you not put it in there before? A.—I suppose I neglected putting it there. I did not finish it. Q.—Now, then, if any person were to take this outfit account book—"Sealing outfit of 8 boats and 28 men," and try to get information from' it, he would think by looking at that book that it contained an account of what it would cost to fit out that vessel for one season? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—But he would be deceived in that? A.—It was not intended for that purpose. Q.—He would be deceived, would he not? A.—He might be deceived, but it would not deceive me. The reason I would enter the value of the goods was that if I were fitting out another vessel at any time, I could refer to that book for the value of the goods. Q.^Now, that is your statement—that you did not make it out for any purpose of that kind? A.—No, sir. Q.—Is that true? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you swear that it is true? A.—Yes, sir. Q:—I will follow that out and see if it could possibly be true. You took all the expenses at first? A.—Yes, sir.' Q.—And you add them up? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And then you follow it on: "Cost of getting 2,000 seals at $3.00 per seal to hunters, $6,000; 16 seals at $2,000," and other items. And then vou say there were 2 000 seals (Alex. McLean—Cross.) at $11, and you bring out the profit on these seals at $8,242? A.—That would be on the basis of catching 2,000 seals. But the vessel did not get that many. That was made up on the voyage of 1884, before the end of the season. I figured it out on the basis of getting 2,000 seals, to see what profit she would make before we got to San Francisco. It did not come out correct, because we did not get the 2,000 seals. Q.—This calculation was made in advance? A.—Yes, sir. 10 Q.—Before you got the seals? A.—Yes; that was made on the voyage going across, and the entries of the accounts of the ship in that book. Then I figured on supposing I would get 2,000 seals, what profit she would make. After I returned from the voyage I did not correct it. Q.—And you based that calculation by charging your ship with stores and other goods, which you say you might give to other vessels? A.—Of course, my intention was to credit her again at the end of the voyage. I did not do so, as I did not complete that statement I put that in for my own 20 . , ^ r J private use. Q.—Now, this account purports to contain three separate headings, does it not? First, boats, guns and ammunition? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—$2,492.85? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The second, slop chest and advances, $2,788? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—The third, groceries and provisions, $3,294.95? A.— Yes, sir, Q.—Total outfit, $7,575.80? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And any person reading that would imagine that that was the outfit for one ship, containing 28 men and 8 boats? A.—Y'es, that is what went on board that ship for that voyage. Q.—And before that entry, you have a detailed statement of each one of these things. In the first place, you have the hunting gear, boats, guns, and ammunition, $2,492.85—that is the first thing you made up? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And then you have advances to crew, and slop chest, aq amounting to what? A.—$668.08. Q.—Here 3'ou have groceries and provisions, and they come to what? A.—$2,294.95. Q.—May I ask you whether the guns and ammunition and be>ats that are in this book were for that one vessel? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—You carried no ammunition for other vesesls? A.—If they got run short, I might have spare ammunition on board. Q.—Did you take spare ammunition for other vessels, or did you not? A.—I took some, in case they were run short. Q.—How much? A.—I cannot say; the book will show. I probably might have three kegs to spare. I always carried plenty of ammunition, and I have given ammunition to ships sailing out of here that would run short. Q.—Would the slop chest be sufficient for your own vessel, or was it for others? A.—More than sufficient for my own own vessel. Q.—Why did you do that? A.—If any other vessel run short, I would have some to give them. Q.—And did the other vessels carry an extra supply also? Co A.—No; this vessel was a larger vessel, and took supplies and brought back skins to San Francisco. Q.—That being the case, she being larger than any other, and being a supply ship anel not exactly a sealing ship, will you tell me why you chose her to put her supplies in this book? A.—It shows I put every article in the ship there. Q.—But the queer part is that you did not put in the name of the ship? A.—You can refer to the other page for the catch of 1889. IO 20 4SS (Alex. McLean—Cross) Q.—Have you kept the log of the "Bonanza" for 1894? A. —I believe so. Q.—Have you got that log here? A.—Not here, it is in San Francisco. I did not bring any logs here from 1889 up. Q.—Have you got it in your possession and control? A.— Y'es, sir. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—164, I believe. It may be a ton or two more or less. Q.—You have that log? A.—Yes,- sir. Q.—And it can be obtained before this Commission, either here or in San Francisco? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you will deliver it here, will you? A.—Yes, sir, I will. Q.—As a matter of fact, did you deliver stores to other vessels that year? A.—I did, sir! Q.—To what amount? A.—I cannot exactly say to what amount. Q.—Do you know to what vessels? A—Yes, sir. Q.—What vessels? A.—One was the schooner "Herman," the oilier the schooner "Alexander." belonging to the same employer. Q.—Did you keep a record of them? A.—I have not got the record of it here, but could find out in San Francisco by referring to the ship's agents. I gave the amount of it when i came to San Francisco. Q.—It wont appear in your log? A.—No, I don't think it will appear in my log. 30 Q.—Who was the ship's agent there? A.—A. P. Lorantz'. Q.—You have here 16 shotguns, No. 10. and the price is marked at $65 each—was that the amount you paid? A.— That is what the average cost of the guns would have been. Som of these guns would run all the way from $30 up to $80. They were second hand guns; they had been used one year on the "Alexander." Q.—So that you were actually paying, then, $65 for second-' hand guns? A.—The*y belonged to the same firm, but were taken out of another ship. We placed a value of $65 on 4° them, and that would be about their actual cost right there. Q.—And the boats 3'ou ediarged for at $100 each ? A.—Yes. sir, they were extra built boats. Q.—Of course, there is no doubt about that? A.—Y'es, sir; extra built boats; it was a new improvement that was made on boats the year before that—in 1894. Q.—And I see you had 12 tons of salt? -A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, you have given us a good deal of evidence here as to the value of vessels, have you not? A.—Yes, sir. 50 Q.—I was much struck with the idea that you must be a very experienced man in valuing vessels. In the first place, you went through the names of all the vessels you could think of? A.— I suppose so. Q.—Y'ou stated that all these vessels came from San Francisco, the most of them? A.—At that time, sir. Q.—As a matter of fact, did not some of these vessels that 3'ou nameel as coming from San Francisco originally come from Nova Scotia? A.— There was one or two from San Francisco. The "Lottie Fairfield"—she came up here and afterwards went to San Francisco and was sold. She made one year hunting. Q.—I do not say only from Nova Scotia—but from ports of the Eastern coastgof Ameiaga? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—A~nd how many were there from the eastern coast or these vessels that you named as coming from San Francisco? A.—There were severaBof them, I guess, coming originally from the eastern coast up to San Francisco. 60 456 10 20 30 (Alex. McLean—Cross.) -I mean to ask if they came around the Ho.rn? A.- The "Mary built on this Yes, Q.—There were a gooel number of such vessels, were there not? A.—There were a few—probably there were three or four of them. Q.—We will perhaps find a little more than that? A.— There may be. Q.—If the Americans could buy vessels so cheaply at San Francisco, can you tell me why they were getting them around from the eastern coast? A.—That would be some years ago. Some of these vessels would come out as survey boats and be owned, and perhaps rebuilt at San Francisco before they came here. Q.—As a mater of fact, in 1888, 1889, and 1890, a large number of vessels came around from the eastern coast? A. —They came to Victoria here, and a couple came to San Francisco, too. Q.—Only two of them? A.—Only two in those years. Two was all I can remember. Q.—At all "Events, a large number came around from Nova Scotia and other parts of the eastern coast? A.—Yes, sir, that is, in 1888 and 1889. Q.—And these were bought by pretty shrewd business men here, were they not? A.—I should think they would be. They ought to be qualified to buy a ship before they sent them all the way there to buy them. Q.—And you have no doubt that they were qualified? A. —They might be, some of them. Q.—Now, we will just see about these ships. Ellen" came from San Francisco? She side, was she? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the "Theresa"? A.—She was built in San Francisco. Q.—And the "Anna Beck"? A.—The "Anna Beck" was built in the United States, what part I do not know, but she came from San Francisco here. Q.—Can you say whether the "Anna Beck" was built on 4° the East side or the West side of America. A.—I do not know what side of America she was built on. Q.—You do not know anything about her? A.—I know of the vessel, and have been on board of her. Q.—You do not know whether she came from some part of Massachussetts or not? A.—I only know she came from San Francisco. Q.—And what about the "Sierra"? A.—She was an American built vessel. Q.—What part of America? A.—San Francisco, I believe. Q.—Will you swear it? A.—No, sir. Q.—When did she come here? A.—She came here probably in 1886. Q.—Was she here? A.—I guess she was; I cannot say that she was here positively, but I know she was on the American s'ule. Q.—Did she' come here in 1886 or 1887? A.—I believe she was here in 1886. Q.—Will you swear whether she was here in 1886 or not? A.—No, sir; I will not. Q.—Will you swear she was here in 1887? A.—No; I cannot swear to that, but if she was here at all, she was here in 1886. Q.—Was she here at all? A.—I saw her at sea, and saw the master of her here in 1887. Q.—As a matter of fact, you do not know whether she was here at all or not? A.—I cannot swear to that vessel. 50 (JO IO (Alex. McLean—Cross.) Q.—The "San Jose," where was she built ? built in San Francisco. Q.—Was she here in 1886 or 1887? 1887. Q.—Not in 1886? A.—I do not think she was here in 1886, because I believe she was built in 1886, and her first season was in 1887. Q.—How do you know she was. built in San Francisco? A.—She was built close to San Francisco. I saw her coming in and came up the Straits with her. Q.—Will you swear she was here in 1887? A.—I think so. Q.—Do you swear to it? A.—I cannot swear to it. It may have been in May, 1888, she came here. Q.—Now, Mr. McLean, I do not want to take you at any disadvantage. You have gone through a long list of ships, and I ask you if you did not swear in your examination that that vessel was here in 1887? A.—I will swear she was here in 1888, because I was up the Straits with her. Mr. Dickinson:—On direct examination, this witness was not asked whether a long list of ships came to Victoria or not. The testimony went to show that they were fitted out for sealing vessels, and it was not that they came to Victoria. Mr. Peters:—I have the right to find out whether they did or not. Mr. Dickinson:—Yes; but you stated a moment ago that ,0 this witness in his direct testimony stated that these ships came here in 1886 or 1887. Mr. Peters:—I did so understand his evidence— 20 Mr. Dickinson:—I want to correct you on that. The point was in the examination that these vessels were fitted out for sealers in San Francisco, and not that they came here. Mr. Peters:—My learned friend asked first about | list of vessds and then he asked about a list of vessels which chang- 40 ed hands. I am referring to the first one now. (To witness): This vessel was not here to vour knowledge in 1SS6? A.—No, I believe that it was in May, 1S88, that I first saw her here. I came up the Straits in company with her. Q.—Is that the first you saw of her—May, 1888? A.— That was the first I knew of her. Of course, she was built before that, but that was the first I saw of her. Q.—You never knew her before? A.—I don't believe I had 50 seen her. Q.—Was she in the sealing business or not? A.—I do not know that she was out in 1887, but I know that she was out in 1888. Q.—Yrou do not know if she was in the sealing business in 1888? A.—She was in the sealing business in 1888. Q.—The "San Diego" was the one you were in ? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was she here in 1886? A.—I cannot exactly say she was in here, but she was in the sealing business. Go Q.—She was actually engaged? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "San Diego'* was actually seized in 1886? Yes, sir. Q.—And therefore was not in the market to be bought by Mr. Munsie? A.—I believe she was released and sold afterwards. Q.—I have here a list made out by Mr. Milne purporting to be a list of schooners at Victoria suitable for sealing business in 1886 or 1887. 45* io 20 30 40 50 60 164 tons, I think, sealing business? A. (Alex. McLean—Cross.) The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— British vessels. Mr. Peters:—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is a list of vessels registered at. Victoria? Mr. Peters:—Cleared from Victoria. Mr. Dickinson:—But British vessels. Mr. Peters:—I am simply asking him to look over that list and to answer the question whether there were any other British, vessels at Victoria at that time that he knows of outside of that, list (list referred to Exhibit 16, (!. B. "Carolena" case,)? A.—That is as was owned here? Q.—British vessels at Victoria? A.—There was one British vessel called the "Lottie Fairfield" and I do not see her in that list. Q.—What size was she? A.—Aboul Q.—When was she emploved in the —In 1887. Q.—Up to 1886 and including 1886 were any vessels of the tonnage of the "Lottie Fairfield" employed in sealing? A.-- No, sir. Q.—When did you first begin to employ such large vessels? A.—That was the largest vessels that we employed up to that time that I know of. Q.—Even now? A.—There must be large vessels now. Q.—What is the size of the largest vessel the*y employed in the business then? A.—We emplo37 vessels at the present time from about 200 tons to 300 tons. Q.—But I am asking you another question, originally they did not employ large vessels? A.—No, sir, they used to have at that time about 80 ton vessels. Q.—The "Lottie Fairfield" was not sealing in 1886? A.— No, sir, she was in 18S7, she was offered for sale in 1886. Q.—That is the only British vessel that you remember at present? A.—Yes. Q.—So that this list, exhibit 16, is practically complete with the exception of the "Lottie Fairfield?" A.—I suppose it is. Q.—You believe it to be do you not?? A.—I believe it is. I did not keep a complete record of all vessels that were here at that time. Q.—Now I just want to read you the list of vessels and see whether I do not give you a complete list of the American sealing vessels that were employed in 1896. Do you remember the names you gave us on Saturday last? A.—I do not suppose I would remember them all, but I might remember some of them if I heard them. Q.—Do you remember any American vessels that were engaged in sealing in 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Name some of them? A.—There was the "Alexander" and the "Vanderbilt." Q.—I will read you these names and you will say if they are right. There was the "Alexander?" A.—Yes. sir. Q.—And the "Allie I. Alger," was she there in 1886? \. —I think 1887 was her first year. Q.—She was not there in 1886, that, is your opinion? A.— I do not think so, but I kept no record of the dates and years, and so on with regard to these vessels. O-—Do vou remember the "Annie?" A.—She was sealing. Q._Tn 1886? A.—I cannot say as for 1886. Q.—And the "Charles G. Wilson?" A.—She has been sealing. 10 (Alex. McLean—Cross.) Q.—In 1886? A.—I cannot say as to that. Q.—The "City of San Diego?"' A.—Yes, sir. Q.—She was in 1886- A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "Helen Blum?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "Laura?" A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—The "Lookout?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "Otter?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "San Diego?" A.—Yes. sir. Q.—The "Sylvia Handy?" A.—Yes, sir. Q,—Could you name any other one in 1886? A.—There was the "Vanderbilt" I think.' Q.—Will you swear that she was ? A.—I cannot swear if she was out for that year or not, but I met her at sea. Q.—I am talking of the year 1886. Was there any other vessel than those I have named sealing? A.—I have not got a list of them for 1886. Q.—Can you name any others? A.—I cannot name any 20 other at present sir. Q.—In 1886 as a matter of fact did not a good many of the vessels that went out go otter hunting more than seal hunting? A.—Some of them were otter hunting and some seal hunting. Q.—Was not the chief business of some of them otter hunt ing? A.—Yes, sii 0.—Was she a sealer? Q.—The other was the steamer sealer? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The other was the schooner "Bonanza," was sealer A. Q.—In 1887 the number of vessels in seal hunting increased a good deal? A.—Yes, I believe so. Q.—Where did the chief bulk of the American vessels 30 come from that were hunting seals? A.—From different places. Some of them came from Japan. Q.—And where else? A.—Some of them I suppose cane from San Francisco. Q.—Did any of them come round the Horn? A.—In 1887 I do not think so. T do not believe there were any came around in 1887. Q.—In 1888, there were not so many engaged, I believe, in seal hunting? A.—Yes, there were some vessels came here in 1888. 4° Q.—Where from? A.—From the eastern provinces. Q.—Did they come from San Francisco too? A.—I think so. Q.—In 1S89 the "Lottie" came around the Horn? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Now, 3'ou said you had a good deal to do with the sale of vessels and that 3'ou sold several vessels. I have the names of them here that you said you sold, and I ask yon if you yourself had something to do with the selling of some j.0 vessels? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many vessels had you actually to do with the sale of? A.—I have been interested in three vessels. Q.—You had something to do with the selling and buying of three vessels? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Outside of that had you anything to do with the purchase or sale of a vessel? A.—Not here, excepting them three. Q.—Had you anywhere else except her San Francisco. 60 Q.—rWhat vessels did you buy in San Francisco? A.—J inspected vessels for other parties. Q.—How many? A.—I think three or four. Q.—What vessels were they? A.—The "James Hamilton Lewis." A.—Yes. sir. Alexander," was she a 460 nuiN 10 20 (Alex. McLean—Cross.) Q.—These are the three vessels you inspected? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you make a bargain for the purchase? A.—For one of them. Q.—Only one of them? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Which one? A.—That was the "John Hamilton Lewis." Q.—When was that? A.—In 1890, I think. Q.—And the other vessels you simply inspected to see whether they were suitable vessels or not? A.—Yes, sir, to see if they were worth the money asked for them. - Q.—Were these old or new vessels? A.—Some of them were up in 3'ears. Q.—What do you call up in years? A.—Close on to twenty. Q.—Were any of them new? A.—No, sir, not one. Q.—What was the youngest of them? A.—The youngest would have been at that time about seven or eight vears old. Q— And this was in 1890? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You had nothing to do with the buying of vessels for any other persons in 1886? A.—No, sir. Q.—Nor in 1887? A.—Not in 1887. Q.—You have spoken spedficially of one or two vessels. take, for instance, the "Mountain Chief," which you said had changed hands. I think you said the price of her was $500. How do you know the price? A.—I heard it as com- 30 mon report at the time. Q.—As a matter of common rumor? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—As a matter of fact that was a vessel built by the Siwashes, was it not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And without any trained workmen? A.—There might have been trained workmen there, but I cannot say. Q.—She was a very small vessel? A.—Yes, she was a small vessel. Q.—What was she used for after she was sold? A.—She was used for seal hunting. 40 Q.—After she was sold? A.—Yes, seal hunting and coasting. Q.—You spoke of the "Mary Ellen" as being sold some time between 1884 and 1886. How do you know anything about that? A.—One-fourth interest in her was sold to my brother, Dan McLean. Q.—When was that? A.—That was in the fall of 1883. Q.—And he bought her for sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—At that time sealing was not so much engaged in as in 1886? A.—No, there was some local hunting outside 50 here. Q.—When did you first see the "Mary Ellen"? A.—In 1883. Q.—And the W. P. Sayward, that was sold. How do you know anything about that? A.—Mr. Laing, the owner of her at the time told me. Q— I think that, you said that that one brought $6,000? A.—I believe half of her was transferred for $3,000. Q.—You believe it, but do you say it is right? A.—He told me so himself, Mr. Laing did. Q.—What do you know about the sale of the "Kate"? A. —Part of her was sold in 1884. Q.—Do you know that? A.—Yes, sir, one-third of her. Q.—How do you know? A.—Because I owned an interest, in one-third of her. Q.—In 1884? A.—Yes, in the fall of 1884. Q.—Was she sold in 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you sell her then? A.—My interest, yes, sir. 60 461 io 20 40 60 (Alex. McLean—Cross.) Q.—Do you know anything about the sale of the "Alfred Adams? A.—She was sold here. Q.—What do you know about it? A.—I don't know the figures. Q.—And you say that you did not know the figures for the "Black Diamond," and the "Juanita" and the "Triumph" sold for $8,000 or $9,000? A.—I believe that is close to the figures. Q.—How do j-ou know about that9 A.—Dan McLean told me. Q.—That is your brother? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What was the tonnage of the "Triumph"? Witness:—Close to 106, she might be a few tons less. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— When was she sold? A.—I think it was in 1889, sir. Q.*—You say that the "Lillie L." was sold in 1887, how do you know that? A.—I saw the owner from San Francisco at the time. Q.—Was she an American vessel? A.—Yes. Q.—Where was she sold? A.—Sold in San Francisco-. Q.—And you only know from what you were told? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—He told you that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—After the sale? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You know nothing about it of your own knowledge? A.—That is about all. Q.—And this sale took place in San Francisco? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know anything about the "Penelope?" A.— Yes, I have been aboard the ship. Q.—Do you know anything about her sale? A.—No, sir. Q.—Nor the "Theresa?" A.—No, sir. Q.—There is a vessel called the "Active," what do you know about her? A.—She was sold here the last I knew. Q.—When was she sold? A.—Well, I think it was somewhere in '85 or '86. Q.—How much for did you say? A.—For $3800. Q.—Do you say it was, or. that you believe it was? A.— That it was, the owner told me, sir. Q.—-Who was the owner? A.—Thomas Herald. Q.—And did you see her at that time? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was she going on a voyage, or coming from a voyage? A.—At that time he brought her here, and wanted to sell the vessel. Q.—What time of the year was it? A.—I guess it was the winter season. Q.—This you heard from the owner? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Outside of the sales you actually made yourself, have 3'ou any personal knowledge of any one sale? A.—Of course vessels were sold. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Now, Mr. Witness, since I spoke to you we have got along very nicely indeed. The notes are becoming tremendous, and when you see a question that can be answered by yes or no, please answer it in that way. (Question repikted.) A.—No, sir. Haven't any personal knowledge; I haven't seen the money paiel. Q.—Were you present at any one case at the bargain except where you were yourself interested ? A.—No, sir. Q.—In sailing from here to Behring Sea in any one of 462 (Alex. McLean—Cross.) these vessels, the "Mary Ellen," the "Favourite," or the "Bonanza," what trading posts would you call at before you got to Behring Sea, or would you call at any? A.—Sand Point, Chumicken Islands, Alaska. Q.—Were there different people who had trading places there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Would you call at any others? A.—At Alitac Bav, Alaska. Q.—Any other? A.—No, sir. Q.—Is there where you took on your Indians? A.—No, sir. Q.—You took them on where? A.—On the west coast of Vancouver Island. Q.—In the trip of the "Bonanza" did you call at any of those places,.and which of them? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you call at any place? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where? A.—Yokohama and Hakodate. 20 Q-—Would you require to get rid of any of your provisions at either of those places? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What kind of provisions? A.—Canned meats. Q.—What, sell them there? A.—No, sir; transfer from our vessel to another vessel; I couldn't exactly state the amount. Q.—Did you keep an account of all this? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that is at San Francisco? A.—Yres, sir. Q.—Is that an account with the same man you spoke of before? A.—Yes, sir. ^o Q-—-Did you take in any more stuff at those places? A.—■ No, sir. I may have taken some fresh meats probably, and vegetables for the crew. Mr. Dickinson:—Do the trading stations you speak of refer to Vancouver Island? Mr. Peters:—No, trading posts on the way up to Behring Sea. He mentioned two. 40 Mr. Dickinson to witness:—Y'ou did not refer to trading stations on this island? A.—No, sir. Mr. Peters:—Now, Mr. McLean, you made some affidavits heretofore in this matter? A.—Yes, sir; I have made some affidavits. Q.—You made an affidavit which is found in the third volume of the American reprint, page 436. I want to see if you remember this is what you said: "Have you been master 5o of vessels thus engaged," that is in sealing, and your answer was, "I have been nine years in the sealing business?" A.— Yes, sir. Q.—"What time of the year do you generally start out sealing in the Pacific?" A.—"We varied always from the 11th of January to the 11th of February. "When do you call the season's catch over?" A.—"About the 11th of September, about a month later. I usually get back about the 11th of September." Is that the statement you made? A.—I couldn't exactly say I made that statement; I may have. °° If I made that, sir, it is correct. ^ Q.—February 1, 1892, was when you made that statement? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that was correct, was it? A.—Yes, sir, I suppose that was correct. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Does that last statement tend to contradict the witness in any way? IO 20 30 (Ahix. McLean—Cross—Re-direct Mr. Peters:—I think it does, to show he tried to make the season close out the 20th of August, while there he says the 11th of September. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—He says he got back .the 11th of September. It may be understood to be stated both ways, but he finally said he got back the 11th of September. Q.—I want to call your attention to another affidavit you made in Volume 7 of the American Reprint, page 345, as follows: "Was one of the most successful engaged in the business; have been in Behring Sea every season since 1882; the hunting season begins in Behring Sea the fore part of July and ends the last of August." Is that correct? A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Peters continues reading from affidavit: "I entered Behring Sea three 3'ears in succession on July 4th, and usually came out August 25th, at which time the season practically closes." Is that correct? A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Peters:—This affidavit was made on the 7th of October, 1892. To witness:—I wish to call your attention to another statement, as follows: "The vessel furnishes the supplies, but it costs only about one-half to subsist an Indian crew that it does a white crew, for the Indians live chiefly on the flesh of the seal and hard bread. Sealing vessels are fitted out in February for an eight months' voyage." Q.—Is that right? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What vear does that refer to? A.—That would refer to 1888. Q.—When did you change the time of fitting out? A.— Well, between 1887 and 1888, I suppose, because formerly the Indians used to feed themselves, and after that we began feeding the Indians. Q.—The length of the cruise? A.—Well, first when I 40 went out we used to start from here in March, the 12th of March, I think; the season was shorter then. Q.—Then you commenced in February? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—That was in 1888? A.—Yes, sir. And later on I have been going out in January. Re-direct examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Now, Mr. McLean, you were asked if you had been in prison? A.—Y'es, sir. 50 Q-—&nd you said that you were arrested, I think, in Nova Scotia ? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you please tell now what it was for? A.—For being into a row; a street row. Q.—Some one insulted you and you whipped him, I hope. That was about what it was? A.—Being insulted, of course I had to protect nryself. Q.—How long were you detained? A.—Once I was detained for six hours and another time for three. Q.—Were you put in jail at all? A.—Well, I was put in Go jail for three hours in San Francisco. Q.—But this time in Nova Scotia? A.—Yes, sir, I was taken by an officer. Q.—Were you convicted of assault and battery? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And sentenced to six hours' imprisonment? A.—Yes. sir. Q—Was that the substance of it in Nova Scotia? A,— Yes, sir. 464 IO 20 30 40 50 60 (Alex. McLean—Cross—Re-direct.) Q.—And another time, I think you said, you were detained because you were away from your ship without leave? A.— That was the same time. They sent for the chief officer of the ship. I left the ship and went ashore without liberty, and there were two watches, port and starboard watches, and the watch went ashore that evening tiiat I didn't belong to. I wanted to get ashore that evening for some purpose, and when I was going aboard the ship again about 11 o'clock in the evening I happened to get into a row with a man and I was locked up. Q.—What was done about your leaving the ship without leave? A.—The officer he appeared and made a report that I left the.ship without liberty. Q.—And you were not detained or punished for that? A. —No, sir. Q.—Were you ever imprisoned for any other offence in Nova Scotia? A.—No, sir. Q.—And your whole sentence was six hours? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You told your story in court at the time, didn't you? A.—Yes, sir, I told the truth. Q.—Referring to the trouble at San Francisco, the newspapers say you have been in jail and imprisoned three or four, times. Now we will see whether a witness is to be abused lnce this. Tell us about the San Francisco trouble? A.— Cot into a streat fight in San Francisco. Q.—A sailors' fight? A.—Ytes, sir. v^.—What became of that? A.—We were arrested and detained for three hours. Q.—Were you sentenced to jail? A.—I was taken to jail bv an officer. ' Q.—Before or after the trial? A.—Before the trial. Q.—And were you acquitted at the trial? A.—Acquitted. Q.—And you were in jail, then, pending the trial? A.— Pending the trial, but I was released on bail. Q.—And then you were promptty discharged and held not guilty? A.—Not guilty. Q.—Now, are these the only times you have been imprisoned? A.—That is the only time I know of. Of course I was detained some years ago in Russia, but I was not imprisoned. Q.—That was for sealing in Russian waters? A.—Yes, sir, had been seized there. Q.—But you were not put in jail? A.—No, sir. Q.—And was released? A.—And released. Of course I was detained; I couldn't leave the country for a certain time. Q.—But you never had a trial? A.—Never had a trial. Q.—And were never convicted? A.—Never convicted. Q.—And your vessel was seized at the same time? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Did you get aAvay finally with your vessel? A.—No, sir. Q.—They kept the vessel? A.—Kept the vessel, sir. q—Forfeited it? A.—Forfeited it. Q.—Was there any charge against you except for sealing in Russian waters? A.—No, sir. Q.—Now is there any other place in your life where you were put in prison? A.—No, sir. Q.—Or charged with any offences? A.—No, sir; no other place. q.—Were you ever complained of for any offence agains* the laws of any country except those you have stated? A. —No, sir. Q.—Now, .Captain, just before the direct examination closed, you spoke of not visiting any trading posts on your IO 30 40 So Go Q.—And you added "Bonanza" that made wanted to know that catch? A.—Yes, sir, 1 added up and I made Q.—So that it would wanted to see Q.—Now on were asked in boats, 28 men, examined 30 (Alex. McLean- way up. Did you understand that Mr. Peters was referring to trading posts in Alaska? A.—I understood him to refer to trading posts in Alaska, sir. Q.—Now, you did call at trading posts on the Island up here, did you uot? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You had some yourself, did 3'ou not? A.—Yes, sir; had three trading stores on the coast of Vancouver Island. Q.—Was that when you were in the "Bonanza?" A.—No, sir; when I was on the Favourite:" Q.—Now this book which has been referred to in the direct examination. I do not propose to have it go into the minutes, but you have it merely as the book referred to in the direct examination, and to which I now call attention. I will have it marked by the Secretary for indentification with the Secretary's initials, and the words "For indentification, No. 2," entitled "Sealing Accounts and general information by Capt. Alexander McLean." Now, Captain, did you make 20 any part of this book for the purpose of deceiving anybody, or showing it to anybody? A.—No, sir, I made it expressly for my own use. Q.—I notice you have various recipes for coughs and bunions and one thing and another here? A.—Yes, sir, I thought it might be convenient aboard ship. Q.—You did not make such memoranda for the purpose of deceiving anybody as to what kind of mixture to take, or to put on their toes, did you? A.—No, sir. Q.—It was your private book? A.—It book. Q.—You were asked if you did not make an erasure of the word "Master" in this be*ok, and you said you did very promptly. You were not master of the "Favourite" on that voyage, were you—the "Mary Ellen"? A.—No, sir, not on the "Mary Ellen.' ' Q.—And the word "Master" as it appeared there would not be the truth, would it? A.—No, sir, it wouldn't be the truth. Q.—And you also put the word "Bonanza" on the page below within three or four weeks, I think—"A. McLean, master schooner 'Bonanza"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What is on the . page above it? A.—(Examining "Sealing in the Pacific Ocean." Q.—What is that the catch of? A.—The catch of the schooner "Bonanza." Q.—Of the schooner "Bonanza." It is not the catch of any other vessel? A.—No, sir. Q.—And that is a correct transcript of the catch is it, Captain, for your private information? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And when you got a letter, I think, from Mr. Bodwell, that you might be wanted here, you went over these books? A.—I looked over the books and thought I had better correct them. Q.—To give proper information? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And then you let them have the books, did you not? A.—Yes, sir. that you were master of the schooner that catch to indicate to anyone'that that was the schooner "Bonanza's" it the time this column here was not the additions in lead pencil, give some information to anyone that A.—Yes, sir. list of supplies it? this regard to it—for a you have been cross-examined is to it, and the various items called to your 466 (Alex. McLean—Re-direct.) tion. Did you have in that list any ham and bacon? A.— Yes, sir, there is some ham and bacon on there. Q.—And when you come across pilot bread put your finger on that? A.—(Examining.) Had 8 cases of pilot bread. Q.—Eight boxes, is that? A.—Eight boxes, that would be a box to each vessel. Q.—That is all you had? A.—Yes, sir. I don't see any 1am or bacon on here, sir. Q.—Now, on that estimate of 28 men and 8 boats for a 9 months voyage, did you foot the total for the provisions of the outfit? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How much was it? A.—That would be provisions, $2,294.95. Q.—That is groceries and provisions for the whole outfit? A.—Yres, sir, for the whole outfit. Q.—You have stated in the affidavit which has been shown 3'ou that for the three years your time for leaving Behring Sea was about August 25th? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—For the same three years you have testified here that vou elid not lower the boats after the 19th? A.—Did not hunt any after the 19th. Q.—And I think you testified in direct examination that 3'ou did not hunt any but left the Sea, according to 3'our log, about the 25th? A.—Y'es, sir, within a few days of my last lowering. Q.—So you are fixing the same general date for leaving the Sea on the 25th for three years in that affidavit of 1892. ;-s you testified here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the coincidence of dates is very similar. Now, when you were out on the "Favourite" did the mate have the information as to the catch in 1886? A.—No, sir; he might have had the dates and number, the number of seals that was caught, I am not sure of that, I don't know as he kept a record of it. Q.—Do you find on your examination of the log, and the memordum you had as to the places of catch, any material difference between the latitude and the longitude set down in your memorandum here in the book that has been identified and marked "For Identification, No 2"? A.^—Between it and the logs? Q.—Yes, sir? A.—In what respect? Q.—In the latitude and longitude? A.—There may be a difference. Q.—How did it come about? A.—The positions are put down for 12 o'clock noon, and the book I used put the positions down for the exact place the seals would be caught in. Q.—You kept this book for your private information, and jut down the sealing ground as the latitude and longitude? A.—Yes, sir, for my private information. Q.—And that 3'ou transferred to this book from that memoranda? A.—Yes, sir, and then destroyed them, because I didn't wish to have too many of those little books. Q.—And you kept that memorandum as to the seal catch? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—The latitude and longitude of the seal catch? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Is that the explanation of the difference between your atitude and longitude as shown by your log, taken at noon and the place you caught seals on that day? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1886 had Indians come to be emplo3'ed in the same way as white men ? -V.—Up to 1887. they weren't, no sir. Q.—How were the>- employed, and what were they given? A.—The.v used to give them a certain rate oer skin. Q.—And Uie-v find themselves? A.—Find themselves. Q.—I suppose they lived on seal meat those days? A.—A good deal of seal meat, and dried fish and biscuits. IO 467 (Alex. McLean—Re-direct—Re-cross.) Q.—And was there anything in those days of sealing of this kind? Were Indians fishing for seals independently? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And they -caught seals did they not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you trade with them in those days. A.—Yes, sir, used to buy seals from them. Q.—And you carried stuff to trade with the Indians for skins? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—To get their catches? A.—Yes, sir. Q.-^How many ships did the Pacific Trading Company have out? A.—I believe they had something like eight ships, probably might have more at various times. I believe the most at one time would be eight, seven or eight. Q.—I think some comparison was' made between you and Captain Warren as being the oldest sealers. I think you went into the Behring Sea with about the first sealing trip did you not? A.—In the "San Diego." There had been other vessels in there before, but they didn't go in as a matter of seal hunting, otter hunting, a good many of them. Q.—Was the "Bonanza" used at all as a supply boat to the other boats? A.—Well, she was intended if any of the other vessels ran short of provisions to supply them. Q.—How does she correspond in tonnage with the others? A.—Very near double the tonnage. Q.—She was how large? A.—About 164 tons net register. Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Do I understand that the "Bonanza" had Indian hunters aboard? A.— 3° No, white hunters. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Will you take the provisions here and let me know how much it computes on one month for each man. 20 SO . Mr. Dickinson:—That was for nine months, of course, the Commissioners understand. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I figure it 28 men nine months would make 252 months for one man, 40 and $2,294, the total bill. That is less than $10 per man. Mr. Dickinson:—One thing I' did omit in answering to my friend, Mr. Peters, as to the basis on which the estimate is made, 3-ou said it was made on the basis of 189.4. That is estimated supplies? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And at prices at San Francisco? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you please state whether you did not have to do with the fitting out of the "Favourite" at Victoria? A-— Yes, sir, 1 had. Q.—And any other ships in 1886? A.—Yes, I made out lists of stores Q.—Now, did you understand, when Mr. Peters was examining you that he was referring to 1894 when you fixed San Francisco prices? A.—That was what I understood. Q.—From your experience in fitting out in Victoria, will you please state what in 1886 in your opinion, was the estimated supplier per man at Victoria? A.—Tt might be probably about $11, I don't believe it would come up any more than that. Q.—And you speak from your own experience in fitting out here? A.—Y'es, sir. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Did you say it might be $11 at Victoria in 1886? Let me ask you the question how you make that calculation without having the figures before you? A.—Well, I have already 60 IMH 468 (Alex. McLean—Re-cross. A. B. Alexander—Direct.) made calculations at the time, and I found that they never used to average more than about $10 a month for me. Q.—But where have you got those calculations? A.—I figured them up when I would be on the voyage. Q.—Have you any in existence now? A.—No, sir, I useel to figure them up on a book, just off-hand. Q.—Your things at certain prices there in that book which refer to 1894 in San Francisco, I want to ask you about. How do the articles you have there—the prices—compare with the prices for the same articles at Victoria in 1886? Do you know the difference? A.—Well, at present the price is lower. Q.—Take one item for instance, you have 2,000 pounds of sugar there, at 3-£ cents, I think? A.—Yes, sir. ; Q.—Now, what would that cost in Victoria in 1886, if you know, per pound? A.—Probably from 4 to 5 cents for sugar, I couldn't exactly state because I don't remember the price 20 of articles at that time. Q.—I refer to Voucher No. 36, in which for the "Carolena" sugar is charged at 8 cents per pound in 1886; are you prepared to say that is not correct? A.—That depends a good deal on the grade of the sugar. Q.—I want to know are you prepared to say that it would not cost, and did not cost, that amount in 1886, at Victoria? A.—Yes. sir. I suppose it would. Q.—And flour you have charged there at $3.00? A.—$3.50, I guess. 30 Q.—A sack? Yes, sir, I am not sure. Mr. Dickinson:—Now let us find out whether you are examining about 1894 or not. Mr. Peters:—He has a book here of 1894. To witness:—What are you you charged in 1894 for flour? A.—$3.30 a barrel. Q.—Now as to that item, have you any idea of what flour would have cost you in 1886 at Yictoria? A.—At that time 40 I believe it was about $1.25, between $1.00 and $1.25 a sack. The Commissioner oh the part of the United States:—We all know, Mr. Peters, that flour and sugar were much higher in 1886 than in 1894. Take some item we do not know about. Q.—You had corned meat in both these cases? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How did the price of corned beef in 1894 compare with 1886? A.—I think they would be very near equal. Q.—But without knowing what the difference was, are you 5° in a position to make a calculation as between the two years? A.—Well. I don't know exactly. I believe the meat was about the same price as in 1886, that would be about $10 a barrel. Examination closed. Alyin B. Alexander was caled as a witness on the part of 6° the United States and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Lansing. Q.—Mr. Alexander, what is your occupation? A.—Present occupation, employee in the United States Fish Coin, mission Q.—What was the date of your employment? A--In April, 1886, the exact date I don't remember now. IO 20 30 40 50 60 469 (A. B. Alexander—Direct.) Q.—Where was your residence at that time? A.—Glou cester, Massachusetts. Q.—How long had you resided at Gloucester? A.—I 'had resided at Gloucester from 1864 to about 1873 or 1874, and the following three years from 1873 I think in Lynn, and then again in Gloucester up to 1888. Q.—What was your occupation during those years from 1864 up to 1873? A.—Well, in 1864 I was a school boy, and ne> occupation excepting during vacations, as is customary for all boys in that region to ship aboard a vessel and to earn a little pocket money which I did occasionally for some years. Q.—On what kind of a vessel? A.—American fishing vessel. Q.—And after you left school what became your occupation? A.—I was engaged in various occupations, at times engaged in working for my father. Sometimes I would be engaged in the fisheries, at other times in the sail-making busness. Q.—What was your father's business? A.—A ship carpenter and builder. Q.—Did you become familiar with the construction of fishing vessels at Gloucester? A.—Well, quite familiar, hav- ng seen them in the process of construction for a great number of years. Q.—And their cost? A.—I had an approximate idea as to the cost of the most of them during those times. Q.—And as to the rigging? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The outfit in general? A.—General outfit. Q.—After being employed by the Fish Commission, what were your duties? A.—My duties were in the capacity of a ship's clerk, or the private secretary of the captain, and also had charge of the scientific collection which we collected for the United State Fish Commission. Q.—Where did you do this work? A.—All the way up and down the Atlantic coast, from the coast of Labrador to Cape Hatteras. Q.—How long did you work on the Atlantic coast? A.— On this particular vessel you speak of? Q.—Yes. A.—I was employed on the schooner "Grampus" in April, 1886, and left her in the month of May, 1888. Q.—Where did you go then? A.—I received orders from Washington to join the "Albatross" at San Francisco. Q.—And since 1888? A.—Since 1888 I have been going to Alaska every year, except this year, in the summer months. In the winter time we have been at work occasionally on the coast of Mexico, and the islands of the Pacific, and sometimes on shore. Q.—On coming off the coast in 1888 did you make any examination—any notes—in regard to the construction of fishing vessels on the Pacific Ocean? A.—Well, I noticed the difference in the rigging generally, and the construction of vessels on this coast as compared with those of the Atlantic coast, and I took mental notes, and I took some notes down at the time for general comparison. Q.—What was your reason for doing that? A.—Well, for two reasons. My interest in vessels, comparing the two builds and general construction and so forth, and also as I thought it might be a part of my duty, I might be called on some time to answer such questions for the Fish Commission, which has been the case. Q.—And did those investigations cover the cost of fishing vessels? A.—In regard to their age and general condition and rig, and all things pertaining thereto. Q.—Cost and material? A.—Material with which they were built. 470 A. B. Alexander—Direct.) Q.—And method of construction? A.—Their lines in general. Q.—And statistics I presume in regard to the employment of such vessels? A.—To a certain extent, yes, sir. Q.—And since that time you have examined sealing vessel have you? A.—I have been on board quite a number of vessels and I have examined them at sea as well as they can be examined at sea, and I have been on board of them at this port and also at Seattle for. the purpose of looking them over. Q.—rHave you ever cruised on any sealing vessels? A.— On two. Q.—What ones, and what years? A.—In 1894 I made a cruise on the schooner "Louis Olsen'.' of Astoria, and in 1895 I made a cruise in Behring Sea on the schooner "Dora Sieward" of this port. Q.—Now, in the summer of 1888 you stated you went into Behring Sea? A.—We went to Ounalaska, which of course is in the Behring Sea, but didn't cruise in the Sea that year. Q.—While at Ounalaska did you see any sealing schooners? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On the beach? A.—At Ounalaska, yes, sir, I saw several. Q.—Did you see the "Carolena"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you go on board of her? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you examine her carefully? A.—I examined her quite carefully. Q.—What was she constructed of? A.—She was con- structed of wood, of soft wood, I am quite positive. Where she was built I don't know, but I am quite sure she was constructed of soft wood of some kind. The exact spedes of wood I wouldn't say. Q.—How was she fastened? A.—So far as I could see above the water line, and on the deck, she was fastened with iron, common iron, I think what we call block iron, not galvanized. Q.—Was the rigging standing? A.—The rigging was _ standing at that time. Q.—Did you see any copper fastenings about her? A.— No, sir, I did not. Q.—In what position was she at the time you saw her? A. —At the time I saw her she was lying on the beach, on her starboard side I think. Q.—Could you see her lines? A.—Well you could see the lines on the port side quite well, the starboard side of course would be submerged in water. Q.—What could you say as to her lines, were they old or ,. modern? A.—They were what we would naturally 'CS.11 primitive lines as compared with the modern build. Q.—Now, Mr. Alexander, would you consider yourself competent from your genral knowledge of vessels and of vessels that could be used for fishing purposes on the Pacific Coast to fix a value upon the "Carolena" ready for sea? A. —Do you mean the exact value, or an approximate valne? Mr. Beique:—I do not believe that the witness should be examined as to the value in 1888, because there is nothing to <5o connct that value with the value in 1886 when the vessel was seized. Of course the witness will speak as to the value from his examination in 1888, when the vessel had beeen lying, on the beach for two years. Mr. Lansing:—If the Commissioners please, my learned friends have put a great deal of evidence as to the value of vessels in Nova Scotia in 1888 and in 1890, to establish the value of the "Carolena" in 1886, and it seems to me that it is 47i (A. B. Alexander—Direct.) perfectly competent for the witness in this instance to give the value of the "Carolena" in 1888 ready for sea, if she has been repaired and made ready for sea. ,,Mr, Beique:—Of course the evidence that we have put in ,: was as to the:cost of vessels ready for sealing, but my objection rests-on this: that this vessel was abandoned in 1886, lying on the beach, and remaining there for two years, and io the witness examined her for the first time in 1888, when evidently she had very much deteriorated; and it seems to me-that the value of the vessel at that time, under those conditions, would be no criterion at all as to the value of the vessel at the time she was seized. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Lansing, should you not make your question a little more guarded, so as to avoid the possibility of that presumption? Mr. Lansing:-—I will withdraw that question, and ask the 20 witness another. To Witness:—Mr. Alexander what would you consider the value of the "Carolena" ready for sea in 1886? Mr. Beique:—There is no basis of knowledge shown by the witness. The witness has stated already that he saw her for the first time in 1888. Mr. Dickinson:—We submit that the witness has shown himself competent from his experience and investigations, 30 from his view of the vessel, considering the time that had elapsed, and the wear and tear of the vessel, to testify what, she would have been worth in his opinion in 1886 equipped and in good condition. The Commissioner on the part of the United- States:— Would you not be willing to ask her value at some particular place and at some particular time, put in good condition, or fair condition, because the objection made to that question .by Mr. Beique was, as I understand, that it was possible the .0 • witness might undertake to state the value in the condition in which he found her? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It seems there are a number of things that would be involved, Mr. Lansing. First, the examination of the vessel to see if she was repairable, and then, if it was found that the witness was competent to speak on the matter, and if-it was found she was repairable, having in view the necessary repairs to fit her for sea. 5° Mr. Lansing:—If your Honours please, I did not intend the vessel as she stood then, but the vessel as originally equipped. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—There is nothing in the notes to show in what condition she was; she might have been bilged, and a number of things might have happened. We are in ignorance of all that. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Your question misled my associate precisely as it elid Mr. Beique. 60 1 do not understand that you intend to ask this witness what that vessel was worth, but what a vessel like her, or a vesssel in fair order for sea, repaired, would be worth—a hypothetical question. Sir C. H. Tupper:—Worth where? Mr. Lansing:—On the Pacific coast. 472 (A. B. Alexander—Direct.) Mr. Beique:—I would call the Commissioners attention to this other fact, that this witness has given evidence of some kind of knowledge as to the value of vessels in Massachusetts but so far as I am aware none whatever as to the value of vessels here. He stated that he has been taldng notes, from examining vessels that would not show any knowledge of the cost of vessels in Victoria in 1886, or even in San Francisco. None of his evidence qualifies him as an expert. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It appears that what Mr. Lansing seeks to get from this witness is an answer to some such question as to what a vessel of that size, character and appearance, and built of such material, would be worth at that time if afloat, ready for sea, and properly equipped. Mr. Lansing:—That is precisely the question. The Commissioners then took recess until 2:30. At 2:30 the Commissioners resumed/their seats. Direct examination of Mr. Alexander resumed by Mr. Lansing. Q.—Taking into consideration the size of the vessel, its 3° lines, and material, and its construction what would you say a vessel similar to the "Carolena." 25 years old fully equipped and ready for sea would have been worth on the market on the Pacific Coast in 1886 and 1888? A.—Between $1,800 and $2,000, not exceeding $2,000. Q.—You said you joined the schooner "Louis Olsen" in July 1894? A.—29th of July I think in 1894, 27th or 29th. Q.—"Where did you join her? A.—At Ounalaska. Q.—Of what did her crew consist? A.—"White men. Q.—How many? A.—I think there were 25 men all told. Q.—And how many hunting boats? A.—Six, I think it was. Q.—Did she have a stern boat? A.—She had no stern boat. Q.—And when did you begin sealing? A.—The first day of August. We didn't begin sealing the first of August, we could have sealed, but I think the weather was unfavorable or something of that nature. Q.—And at this time the present regulations as to sealing were in force? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you could not seal before the first of August? A.—No, sir. Q.—Can you give the number of days in August that you sealed, or that you were unable to seal? A.—I could by referring to some data which I have. Do you wish to know the exact number of da3's, or just the total? Mr. Beique:—1 do not know that this could apply to 1886 or 18S7, the conditions were not alike at all. The hunters were not permitted to use shot guns, and the circumstances were altogether different. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I suppose this has reference to the state of .the weather, Mr. Lansing? Mr. Lansing:—Nothing but the state of the weather, and the conditions in 1894 are just as pertinent as the year 1887 to 1886. 473 (A. B. Alexander—Direct.) Mr. Peters:—There is a specific claim that we are entitled to the catch of 1887, 1894 stands differently. Witness:—(Referring to memoranda.)—This was the month of August. The whole number of days were three. Q.—That you lowered? A.—Whole number of days that we lowered were three; half days were three, and the periods of three hours for lowering one, and not hunting during that io time 14 days. Q.—Was that entirely on account of the weather? A.— On account of the weather. Q.—You make this statement from your data? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1895 were 3'ou sealing? A.—I was aboard of a vessel that was engaged in sealing. Q—What vessel was that? A.—The "Dora Sieward" of this port. Q.—And when elid you join her? A.—I think it was on 20 the 29th of July. Q.—Where did yon join her? A.—At Ounalaska, the same place as the former vessel. Q.—Can you give the number of hunting days for the first 25 hunting days in August when you were on the "Dora Sieward?" A. —The whole number of days, nine half days, four periods of two hours hunting, each two, three hours hunting, one, three to four hours, one, not hunting, eight days. Q.—What direction from the Islands did you seal in 1894? ^ A.—Our first seals were taken about south southeast direct from the Islands, and gradually we cruised to the westward. Q— In 1894? A.—In 1895. Q.—I asked you as to 1894? A.—Our seals were taken to the west and northwest of the Islands. Q.—The Pribyloff Islands you mean? A.—I mean the Pribyloff Islands. Q.—In 1895? A.—We began sealing I think somewhere south southeast of the Islands, and gradually cruised to the westward. We occasionally changed our ground from west to east, and east to west, but gradually worked to the westward. Q.—What was the purpose of your being on these vessels? A.—My purpose was to gather all data possible of a pelagic nature in regard to seals. Q.—And from your experience what conditions would you say modify the number of seals taken by vessels? A.—The condition of the weather would enter largely into it, and the skill of the hunters, the previous experince of the captain co and the executive ability, in regard to handling crews, particularly those made up of Indians, and the chances of catching seals and possibly remaining among them when found. 1 mean of finding seals, and of remaining among them when when found. Q.—What would you say as to other vessels being in the vicinit3r? A.—A large number of vesesls being in the vicinity would lessen the chances of each vessel taking seals. Q.—And what would you consider favorable weather fot sealing? A.—Favorable weather would be clear, or a com 6o paratively clear sky and a smooth sea, and a gentle or a very moderate breeze. Q.—Does the weather previous to a clear sky modjfy the catch at all in any way? A.—The weather previous? Q.—Does the weather previous to a clear spell affect the catch? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Explain that please?. A.—For illustegtion, there han been a good deal of wind blowing in any direction for three or four days, and the seals are tired out. They will natur- 40 474 (A. B. Alexander—Direct.) ally sleep more soundly at the end of the gale of wind,than otherwise. Take it on the other hand when seals have been resting for a long time—I might state it this way, that in a heavy gale of wind seal do not sleep very soundly, and possibly will not sleep at all unless they have been tired out by previous exhaustion by a series of gales, something which has interrupted their sleep, but in cases where they i o have' been interrupted by wind and weather, they will sleep . under conditions which they would not otherwise do. Q.—That is. a fact, Mr. Alexander, is it not, that not only the weather of the day on which a lowering is made affects a catch, but also the weather that has previously been bad? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And what would you consider unfavorable weather for sealing beside the mere fact of being unable to lower your boat on account of rough water? A.—Well, at times very foggy weather interferes with the lowering of the boat, and 20 sometimes heavy rain will interfere, that is, it won't interfere with the lowering of the boat, but the chances are unfavorable for catching many seals when it is raining very hard. Q.—WI13- is that? A.—Because the heavy rains oft.times causes the seals to become restless. They don't sleep soundly, and they are hard to approach. Q.—What would you say from.your knowledge and experience as to the weather in the sea? A.—It is variable. Q.—Is it variable in different localities in the Sea? A.— 30 It is. Q.—Can you illustrate that in any wa3r? A.—I can illus- strate it by a cruise I made in the "Louis Olsen" before spoken of during the month of August. A larger portion of it we were to the west and northwest of the Seal Islands, or the Pribyloff Islands during which time.we only lowered the number of days which I have mentioned; and nearly all the time if not e(uite all the time, two degrees south, or two and a half, as the case may be, down at what they call the Bogosloff Grounds there were lowerings made every day, and 40 a large number of seals were being taken, while we were in gales of wind nearly all the time. Q.—Then what would you say as to the zones of. rough weather and fair weather? A.—According to the logs of sealers, men-of-war and cutters— ' Mr. Peters:—Is this gentleman going to give evidence of the logs of sealers when we havethem here? The Commissioner on the part of the Uunited States:—He does not mean these particular sealers. Mr. Peters:—Can that evidence be given? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Supposing anybody wanted to report about the condition of the weather in Behring Sea, how are they going to-report upon Mr. Peters:—We have better eMdence here, we have actual logs for every one of these years. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you claim, Mr. Peters, that for the purpose of obtaining a little fact about the weather of a particular region,'which an expert can answer upon information he has been gathering, that we are to waele through hundreds of logs? Mr. Peters:—That may be all very well, but we have here the fact made apparent, admitted by this witness, that the weather in Behring Sea is variable. He has had experience of one or two years and from that experience he gives evi- so Go io 20 30 40 50 60 47 S (A. B. Alexander—Direct.) dence as to how the weather might have been 10 years before. Mr. Lansing:—I beg pardon, there is no testimony as to that. . Mr. Peters:—Then he says more than that, that he has examined logs. Now in the case of the "Carolena" I submit that we have nothing to do with the weather in Behring Sea except for the years 1886 and 1887, and that we have the best evidence here, the logs for those two years. • ■ The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—But we have got to go through many logs to get at it? Do you suppose the Commission is going to.sit here and go through all those logs? Mr. Peters:—The logs themselves, perhaps, would not be evidence, but is not the testimony of witnesses who were in Behring Sea in 1887 the best evidence? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The official reports are presumably correct that a captain makes in his log in the performance of his duty to his owner and the public, and a person might from a large examination be in a position of an expert and be able to give an opinion. Now if this witness is shown to have examined a sufficient number of logs to put him in that position, I would not think there would be any objection to his giving the result of his examination. The degree of weight that might be attached to it may be another thing. I would not say or suggest at present whether the witness is shown to be in that position. - Mr. Peters:—Up to the present time^ with all deference to my learned friend who put the question, he has not laid a foundation, he has not shown that this gentleman has that experience, that he has examined any number of logs. The question is put to him in this way: "With your examination of logs of sailing vessels and men of war what do you ■ say about" so and so. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—No, that is not the question. Mr. Peters:—What I mean is, there has been no foundation to show that he has made an examination of the official documents. The particular question is what did he say about zones of weather. It is perfectly clear if you go to lay down a matter of that kind you could not lay it down without taking some steps as suggested by Justice King: The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—If he had simply asked for information based upon the examination of logs of a few vessels, I do not see how any Judge could admit it; but it appears that he has been in that sea as an expert on behalf of the United States Government, and he- states among other things that he has investigated the logs of various vessels. The epuestion is put to him with reference to his entire qualification; all that appears. Mr. Peters:—I submit that all that appears to the pre- esnt time does not show that this gentleman is in a position to give expert testimony upon that point. The fact that he went there as an expert is all right, but that does not make him competent. He has not shown that he is an expert. Mr. Lansing:—If my learned friend-will permit me,. I will qualify him. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is it worth while to take the time of this Tribunal with reference 476 (A. B. Alexander—Direct.) to an answer to this question, Mr. Peters? We have statements from gentlemen of that character less qualified than he. Mr. Peters:—The evidence we have given to the present time is from actual experience, and that kind of evidence of course must be admissible, but this man says: "I can go beyond these people, I am going to give some special evi- 10 dence." Diree-t examination continued by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Have you examined a large number of logs of sailing vessels, and of cruisers in regard to the ^weather in Behring Sea? A.—I have examined quite a number of logs, in fact a great number of the sailing vessels' logs. Q.—Extending over what period? A.—I think from 1887 perhaps to 1894 inclusive, I think that is about the ground, 2o may be possibly a year or two earlier in some cases. Q.—And one of your chief purposes was to establish some rule as to the weather in Behring Sea? A.—That was one of the chief purposes. I haven't examined them all alone, I have examined them in connection with other persons. Q.—Now I will repeat the question. What would you say as to zones of good weather, and zones of bad weather? A.— I think there are zones of good weather, and also zones of bad weather. Q.—What would you say as to any particular locality for 3° fair weather? . A.—There i§ no known spots so far as I know where it is absolutely certain to find fair weather, or absolutely certain to find foul weather, they vary according to the circumstances. Q.—Is there any locality where seals can always be found in abundance? A.—I know of none. Q.—In your experience of two years did you find seals at the same place? A.—We found seals, but they were not always of the same number, or equally abundant one time as another, they varied. Q.—And what would yon say as to what locality in the Sea you took seals? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Are you not going to involve us, Mr. Lansing, in a pretty long investigation? This is eight years now after the seizures under discussion. Mr. Lansing:—If your Honour pleases, the conditions and habits of seal life have not changed since 1886. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The other side may ask us to investigate that question, and it may take as long as in the Paris Tribunal. I ask the question whether you think it necessary to open that door. Mr. Lansing:—I was simply going to ask him as to any particular beds or localities where seals can be found. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We have got witnesses here who were up there in 1886 and 1887. Mr. Lansing:—I desire to show Mr. Alexander as a scientist what was his theory as to the abundance of seals at certain times and certain places, and their not being found there at other times. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do •not regard Mr. Alexander as a scientist. Witness:—Very true, I am not. iA. R. Alexander—Direct-—Cross.) Examination continued by Mr. Lansin_ Q.—Mr. Alexander will you state what reason you would' give for the abundance of seals at a certain place and a certain time, and their not being found at another? A.—O, largely to the migratory species' of fish which they subsist on. Q.—What is their food? A.—Their food consists of cod, in a measure, salmon, squid, medusae, and floating crustacae. 10 Q.—You would say practically they are surface feeders? A.—They are practically surface feeders? Q.—And the species of fish migratory? A.—Migratory. Mr. Dickinson:—We submit to the Commissioners that that is a condition, not a theory. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Your remark seems to apply very well, but Mr. Lansing was after the theory before. 20 Q.—What would you say as to the number of vessels in a certain locality affecting the catch? A.—I should think that a large number of vessels in a locality where seals were fairly abundant would have a tendency, to lessen the individual catch. Q.—Why? A.—Because seals are very timid, and the more boats there are on a given ground covering a small or large area as the case may be, would have a tendency to frighten them. It does frighten them, they are harder to approach, less easity obtained. 30 Q.—Now from your knowledge of sealing in Behring Sea, even if you possessed the data as to the number of hunters, their skill, the experienc of the captain, and the conditions of the weather, locality of the vessel, and the proximity of other vessels, do you think there is any basis upon which the probable catch of a vessel for a giVen period of time could be predicted? Mr. Peters:—I submit that this is one of the questions this court will have to decide on the facts of the case. 40 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—'You could ask whether he could do it Mr. Lansing. Do you not think that that is as far as vou could go? Mr. Lansing:—I will put the question in that way. Mr. Peters:—Before he does that we will have to enquire into this man, and see what sort of a judicial mind he has got. He may be a very good naturalist, (which he says he is not), may know something about seals, and may be a scien- 50 tist; but in addition to that he has got to have power of judgment. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—We think the quickest way is to put the question, and reserve the objection. Question repeated. A.—I do not. Q.—In connection with your duties on the Fish Commis- 60 sion, have you studied the habits of migratory fish in Behring Sea that you have spoken of? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many years have you made a study of those? A. —I think it is e.'ight 3'ears since I first went there. Cross-examination by Mr. Beique: Q.—How old are you Mr. Alexander? A.—42. Q.—When did you leave school? A.—I left school at about the age, I think it was 16 or 17 478 (A. B. Alexander- Cross.) Q.—Where were you at school? A.—Well, when I first began to go to school was in the place where I was born. Q.—Up to what age? A.—I think I attended school there about five years. Q.—Up to what age in the place you were born? A.— Well I went to school in two places. I am speaking of the place where I was born. Q.—What I want to get from you is when did you leave 3'our father's house, at what age? A.—At about the age, I think somewhere about 20, possibly may have been 21. Q.—But you were at school up to the time you were 16 or 17?? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When you were at school 3'ou were living at your father's? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—All the time that you went to school? A.—Not all the time that I went to school. Q.—The last three or four years that you went to school? A.—Y'es. Q.—And from 16 or 17 did you leave school? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you remain with vour father until you were 21? A.—About 21. Q.—What were you doing? A.—As I said before, periodically during the vacations I used to go in a fishing vessel. Q.—I understand then that you were not at school? A.— During vacation. Q.—You say that you left school at about the age of 16 or 17? A.—17, yes. Q.—And that you left your father's house at about 21? A. —Yes. Q.—I want to know what during that period was your occupation? A.—A part of the time I was engaged in the fishing business, and part of the time I was at work learning a trade. Q.—What trade? A.—Sail making trade. Q.—Not at your father's? A.—No, sir. Q.—How long were you learning that trade? A.—I was the usual time, three years. Q.—Between the age of 16 and 17, and 21? A.—I believe that was about the age of starting, about the age of 18, I think, to learn my trade. Q.—And during that time you did not follow your father's business very closely did you? A.—Well I was somewhat conversant with it being around there all the time, I was not actively engaged with him at all. Q.—Did you ever follow the cost of building a vessel? A. —Do you mean in detail froni the time she was commenced until she was ready for sea? Q.—Yes, not to go into a minute account? A.—I have known the cost of other vessels after they were built, and the current value of them. Q.—Where, what vessels? A.—In Gloucester, Massachusetts. The "E. B. Marvin" here, the "Henry Dennis" and the "Oscar & Hattie" which belonged in this town. Q.—What occasion had you for following the cost of these Aressels? A.—Nothing more than I was interested in those things. Naturally as an inquisitive man who has a natural tendency for those things, to find out if possible the value of those vessels. - Q.—From whom did you enquire?- A.—The builders and the owners, and the value which I saw she cost in the papers. Q.—What was the cost of any of these vessels, the cost of construction? A.—I will cite the "E. B. Marvin" which was formerly called the "Molly Adams" when she left Gloucester, Massachusetts, it was reported in the papers at the time, and there was a general supposition. IO 20 40 60 (A. B. Alexander—Cross.) Q.—That is not my question. I asked you if you could say from your knowledge what was approximately the cost of building? A.—In the neighborhood of about $13,000. Q.—Where did you get that knowledge? A,—From the fact that I working on her sails, and helped in regard to her price and cost at the time she was launched. Q.—That was in what year? A.—If I remember rightly I think it was in 1885, I won't say positive about the year, but about that time. Q.—You began to say it was from the . newspapers you heard? A.—I mentioned the newspapers with the other things. Q.—It was partly from the newspapers? A.—I heard this from the man who made the sails for the "E. B. Marvin," Mr. Henry B. Colby, of Gloucester, and I heard him say that when she was ready for sea she would cost in the neighborhood of $13,000. Q.—So it is from what a man told you that you were speaking.of the cost of this vessel? A.—I didn't see the money paid, I see a bill of sale of course., Q.—Did you keep any trace of the cost of any part of the vessel? A.—O, no. Q.—And you had no means? A.—I didn't keep an itemized account. Q.—You can speak only from what this man told you, and what you may have seen in the papers? A.—That is what 30 1 based my judgment on. Q.—I suppose it is about the same as with the other two vessels you have mentioned? A.—Yes, about the same. Q.—Y'our experience is of the same nature. From the age of 2l up to 1885, what were you engaged in ? A.—I was engaged at different times—some parts of the year I was engaged in sail-making, and some parts of the year I was engaged in the fishing business. Q.—Where? A.—In Gloucester, Massachusetts. O.—Always there? A.—Not always, three years' of this time I was in Lynn, Massachusetts, I think along the latter part of the '70's. The most' of the time I was working with my father and keeping his books, and things of that kind. Q.—When were 3'ou keeping his books? A.—I think that was along about 1879, or 1880 or 1881, somewhere along there. Q.—When did you go to Behring Sea? A.—I went to Behring Sea in 1888 the first year. Q.—How long were you in Behring Sea that year? A.—I think we left San Francisco on the 4th. day of July, we landed a^: Ounalaska somewhere probably 12 or 14 days after that. I don't remember the exact time we took on.the voyage. Went to Ounalaska, remained there several days, and then did cruising until the latter part of August I think, or possibly in September, not in the Sea proper, but around various parts of Alaska. Q.—How long were you in Behring Sea? A.—That/year? Q.—Yes, that 3'ear? A.—Well, we entered the Behring Sea several times, every time we came to Ounalaska we entered Behring Sea, but we did no cruising in Behring Sea until next year? Q.—You do not answer my question as to how long you remained in Behring Sea in 1888? A.—If I remember rightly, we were there in Ounalaska on four or five different occasions, remaining there about a week, three or four days pos- sibty, it was sometimes a week each time, but did no croisng in Behring Sea, 48o io 20 3° (A. B. Alexander—Cross.) Q.—So you were in Behring Sea merely occasionally, in 1888? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When did you commence in Behring Sea in 1889? How long were you in Behring Sea? A.—The most of the summer. Q.—State the period? A.—Well, say from the month of July, perhaps the 10th, until the latter part of August, perhaps the 25th or 30th. Q.—On what vessel were you? A.—United States ship "Albatross." Q.—Was she sealing? A.—No, sir. Q.—What was she doing? A.—She was engaged in her legitimate duty collecting information about the fisheries, deep sea soundings, and hydrographic work. Q.—When were you next in Behring Sea? A—1890. Q.—How long? We were there about the same time as before. Q.—On what vessel? A.—The "Albatross," same vessel. Q.—In the same occupation? A.—In the same occupation. Q.—Next? A.—1891. Q.—On what vessel? A.—Same vessel. Q.—Occupying the same position again? A.—The same. Q.—1892? A.—In 1892 I was on the revenue cutter "Corwin." I was on the "Corwin," also on the "Rush." I was on the "Corwin" only on this coast, cruising from Victoria up to Fairweather Grounds and back again, boarding sealers, and gathering information. The same year after leaving her I joined thew "Albatross" and remained with her for two or three days, and then was transferred to the "Rush." Q.—How long did you remain in Behring Sea in 1892? A. —I think we got there somewheres the first of July, and remained there until about the 28th of August. Q.—Not occupied at sealing at all? A.—On board the revenue cutter "Rush" who were boarding vessels and running lines from the Pribyloff Islands 25 miles out each way, 100 miles apart, and taking soundings, noting the abundance or scarcity of seals in the zones we passed over, and what seals we got I used to skin them and prepare them for the National Museum. Q.—In 1893 were you in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On what vessel? A.—I was on the "Albatross." Q.—In sealing? A.—She was engaged taking soundings, but occasionally would board a sealer and gather information in connection with seals. Q.—What vessels did you board in 1893? A.—Well, I don't know as I could answer that question correctly. I remember two or three different occasions there were vessels boarded, which ones I don't know, I think the "Triumph" was one, and I think the "Marvin" was another. Q.—How long did you remain in Behring Sea in 1893? A. —About the usual tme, about the latter part of August. Q.—Or the middle of July? A.—Sometimes the first of July, to the latter part of August, and sometimes the 8th or lOh of September. The cruises vary, I cannot exactly put the dates. Q.—Then you went there in 1894? A.—Yes, sir. 60 Q.—gut up to 1894 the only year during which you were occupied in sealing was in 1880, was it not? A.—1892. Q.—And there was only one year that you were occupied at sealing? A.—Prevous to 1894. Yes, sir. Q._What year was it? A.—That was 1892, q.—Well in 1894 when did yon enter Behring Sea? A.— I think we got into Behring Sea somewhere about the 20th of June. I think it may have been a week earlier. 40 50 481 (A. B. Alexander—Cross.) Q.—And 3'ou remained to what date? A.—We made several cruises all around the islands. Q.—Answer my question. Up to what date did .you remain? A.—I was on two vessels, I went up on the "Albatross" and I left the "Albatross" after making several cruises in the Sea, I left her at Ounalaska on the 27th of July then I boarded the "Louis Olsen" then went into the Sea on a seal- I0 ing voyage. Q.—So that you were on the "Olsen" only from the 20th of July, or 29th of July you say? A.—I think we left out through the Unimak Pass on the 23rd day of August, and came down to Victoria. Q.—And that was 3'our second experience at sealing? A. Yes, sir. ; Q,—In what capacity were you on board the ship? A.—I was sent there by the United States Fish Commission to gather what information I could with regard to seal life, ex- 20 amine their stomachs, as to what they feed upon, and gather what information came to my observation, taking temperatures, noting the velocity of the wind, and things of that kind. Q.—Again in 1895 you were in the Sea? A.—Yes, sir, in the "Dora Sieward." Q.—What time did you enter Behring Sea? A.—Came in June, the latter part of June. Possibly the first of July, I joined the "Sayward" 1 think it was July 29th, 1895, either the 27th or the 29th I have forgotten which. 30 Q.—And you remained? A.—I remained on the "Dora Sieward" until the 12th day of October, when we landed in Victoria. Q.—But in Behring Sea you remained how long? A.—I tIiiiik 1 he 22nel day of September. Q.—-Was she occupied in sealing? A.—All the time. Q.—Up to the 22nd day of September? A.—I think that was the date. Q.—Was that your last season in Behring Sea? A.— That was my last season. ' 'I Q.—I believe your experience has been that the seals were quite tame in Behring Sea, were they not? A.—At times they are. Q.—In July and August? A.—-Sometimes they are, and sometimes not. Q.—As a rule? A.—It depends upon the weather. Q.—As a rule, are they not easily approached? A.—Possibly, I may say under certain circumstances, yes. Q.—I believe your experience has been that they are quite cq plentiful during July and August in Behring Sea? A.—I have seen them quite plentiful. Q.—As a rule you have seen them in large numbers have you not? A.—Well that would depend on what constitutes large quantities. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is not this a matter of a shut out on the other side, Mr. Beique? Mr. Beique:—I do not think so. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Does 6° if not relate to the question Mr. Lansing put which was excluded? Of what consequence is it to us, what the condition of seal life was in 1894 or 1895 when he was there. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I feel this way, that I do not think we ought to go into an enquiry as to the condition of seal life in 1894. If, however, the evidence as taken shows that Mr. Lansing went into that on his direct examination, then I think, according to the usual 31 10 482 (A. B. Alexander—Cross.) rules, a cross-examiner would have liberty to follow it. Otherwise, you would have some of the evidence that we might think not relevant, and really objectionable on the notes, and no cross-examination, which might perhaps tend to qualify it, or might not. Therefore, it would seem to me that to determine whether these questions should be asked by Mr. Bieque, we are simply to see whether the matter was gone into by Mr. Lansing. It struck me that the examination by Mr. Lansing was rather full on the matter, and that the enquiry was to some extend entered upon that would admit all these questions. At the same time I agree with my learned brother that the enquiry ought to be deemed an irrelevant one. The only question in my mind is touching the examination of this witness, and not the going into it. hereafter, where it is not open on cross-examination, to seek to cross-examine upon evidence that has been admitted. It might be the better plan to have the whole stricken out, and that would obviate any. difficulty. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I agree with my learned associate that it ought to be all stricken out. Of course the question put with reference to the migratory nature—the question whether seals were found in one place at one season, and in another at another, is en- tiredy different. Mr. Lansing:—I think my question led up to that, and I particularly avoided the question as to the abundance of seals in any particular year, or in comparison with any other 3'ear, or any statement as to the number of seals taken on any date, or during any year. I merely asked the question as to whether seals could be found in abundance at one place, and at the same time return there another year and not be found in abundance. It was merely to bring out the fact that they were migratory in their habits of feeding. Mr. Beique:—My learned friend has gone a little further. The Commissiemer on the part of the United States:—What you say, Mr, Lansing, is perhaps correct, but my mind caught the fact that 3'ou were investigating the condition of seal life in 1894, anel I connected it at once with this same question you and Sir Charles Tupper had been discussing across the table. If we get into these questions we shall protract this investigation beyond what we would be justified in doing in my opinion. w The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Had this better not be stricken out. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I want it to stand as my protest against opening up this question. We have a practical question, to settle here, and in my judgment it can easily be hanelled within the ordinai'3' rules governing proceedings in a court of law—not the narrow rules, and 1 do not think we are justified in going into a large field 60 which would protract this Commission beyond what the circumstance's fairly n-quire. Therefore I have several times interposed. It is on this ground that I was reluctant to see these affidavits opened up, and for the same reason it was I interposed by my question to Mr. Lansing. I have done it mainly in the wa37 of questions, knowing perfee-tlv well that we are all feling our way so far as this case is concerned. When we come to other cases we perhaps can proceed on all sides 40 Bt tat 483 (A. B. Alexander—Cross.) more understandingly. Therefore, what I have interposed has been mainly in the way of questions, having in mind that none of us were acting with all the light we mght hope to have further along, appreciating the difficulties counsel have and doubting not counsel appreciate the difficulties which the Commissioners have under the circumstances. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I do not 10 wish to be thought as having attempted to lay down any general rule, but simply to deal with the practical question of whether the cross-examination properly arose out of the direct examination, The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Coming to the practical matter before us, my learned associate suggests that it be stricken out. There is one other way which would be to allow Mr. Lansing to put the question as to which I checked him, and then let Mr. Beique follow out 20 his line of cross-examination. Mr. Dickinson:—On behalf of the United States we desire to say that we will agree with our learned friends on the other side that the cross-examination on this point is germane to the direct examination. We are endeavoring to show the modifications in the habits of the seal—the modifications of the opportunty to take the seal when there was seal there— by this witness, by the habits of the seal, the migratory habits; and it would seem to us that the question of Mr. Beique to 30 the witness was pertinent to the cross-examinaion. We have not objected. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—If that is the view of the counsel for the United States, Mr. Lansing should be allowed to obtain an answer to his question. Mr. Dickinson:—He obtained that answer, may it please your Honour, bearing on this part of the case. It did not bear directly on 1894, or any other year. From this statement of the habits of the seal we get a condition that the habits of the seal are migratory in the following the fish feed. Then my friend desires to know how many seals he had seen there, from his practical experience, and how they can be approached. 5c The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—All the questions have been answered so far. Mr. Beique:—I think it is but proper, there being so much discussion on that point, for me to state that my only object is to cross-examine the witness on this statement he has made on direct examination that, taking such and suoh conditions as were mentioned in the question it is very problematical as to what amount of seals would be caught, and I think from that point of view without enlarging on the field of the examination, my question is altogether a proper one for cross-examination. 60 Cross-examination continued by Mr. Beique: :i Q.—You admit that every year you went to Behring Sea you found a large quantity of seals, both in July and August? A.—Found a larger quantitv in the vear 1895 than we did in 1894. Q.—But in both years you found a large quantity? A.—■ Found a considerable quantity. io 20 484 (A. B. Alexander—Cross.) Q.—Both in July and August? A.—Both August and September, 1894, a few in July, we were not hunting in July, we passed through them on our way to the hunting grounds. Q.—And from your observation you have ascertained, so far as you were able to ascertain, that from year to year they remained in Behring Sea in large quantities in July and August? A.—That is the natural sealing grounds durng those months in Behring Sea; there must be a large quantity of fish on which they live in Behring Sea around the Pribyloff Islands at that time, they being fish eating mammals, of course there must be a large number of fish in order for them to subsist. Q.—And I believe you have ascertained also that they were not easily frightened, and the3' could be easily approached as a rule? A.—But that rule is subject to variations. Q.—Have you not ascertained that, and have you not made reports to that effect? A.—In a great many cases they are quite easily approached, but there are times when they are not. Q.—Have you not made several reports to your Government to the effect that they are easily approached? A.—I think you will find on looking at the reports that the statement may be modified some, but there were conditions under which they can be easily approached, I think you will find that, I am not positive. Q.—Will .vou refer to the statement that you have made as published in Senate Document No. 137, page 196, and say if 3'ou have not made the following statement in that connection when you were on the ocean: "We soon learned that they were unusualty tame, as we approached near enough to touch one with a spear pole that was in the boat. They showed little signs of fear, notwithstanding that we were within 30 feet of them for fully five minutes"? A.—Yes, sir, that is correct. Q.—Did you also make the following statement? (referring to Volume 8, page 163 of the American re-print.) A.—That is correct. Q.—I believe that you made this report also on page 198 of the same document 137 as of the 5th of August: "A large number of seals was noticed; they were frequently seen playing about, sometimes on the crest of a wave, and then in the hollow of a sea. They seemingly had no fixed course, but would swim in one direction a half a mile or so, return and go in an opposite way. It is more than likely, had the wind been blowing a strong gale, they would all have been bound in one direction." Is that correct? A.—It is. Q.—And you reported also the effect that they were not 5° easily frightened by vessels, that vessels being amongst them had not the effect of frightening them. Mr. Dickinson:—Will you show that report to the witness. Mr. Beique:—1 ask him . The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—You must show it to the court, or someone. Mr. Beique:—I would like to test the memory of the wit- 60 ness before I show it to him. To Witness:—Did 3'ou make a report to that effect that they were not easily frightened, even if there were vessels amongst them. The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—~If it is in writing Mr, Beique, you must show it to him before you ask him ? 40 IO 20 40 50 60 48s (A. B. Alexander—Cross.) Sir C. H. Tupper:—To test his memory. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You cannot test his memory in that. way. Mr. Beique:—Suppose he had made no report, I suppose I would be allowed to ask him whether from his experience he found it so. To Witness:—From your experience is it not a fact that the seals are not easily frightened even when vessels are amongst them? A.-—I have seen them on several occasions when they were not easily frightened, and I have also seen them on other occassions when they were. Q.—Did you make the following statement in Document 137, Part 2, Page 125, "When quite near them one of the seals lifted its head up, but the sight of the vessel caused no alarm. Having no boat to lower, or spear to throw a loud noise was made by shouting and beating upon a tin can. This did not have the effect of frightening them" and also on same page. "At 7 a.m., a sleeping seal was observed under our lee, close aboard, but not in a position to detect us by the sense of smell. A canoe was soon launched and started in pursuit, but the short choppy sea made it somewhat difficult to catch it? In calm weather, or at times when there is only a light wind stirring, a canoe in approaching a seal is generally paddled directly from the leeward, but in a choppy sea such as prevailed on this occasion, an Indian always approaches side to the wind, which brings the canoe in the trough of the sea and prevents it from making any noise that would disturb the 'sleeper' " A.—That is correct. Q.—On page 129 of the same document, did 37ou make the following statement, "No seal life was observed until the middle of the day, when one seal was noticed asleep not far from the vessel, and so soundly that the flapping of the canvas did not disturb it. It was captured. Its stomach was empty?" A.—I did. Q.—And on page 124 of the same document, did you make ■the following statement? "Late in the afternoon we passed close to such a patch covering a considerable area, in which six seals were playing. They paid no attention to the vessel, although within 100 yards of them. A hunter with a shot gun could have captured two or three of the number, and an Indian with a spear would have secured at least two?" A. —I did. Q.—And further, "At 5 p m., the canoes returned with a catch of 42 seals?" A.—Yes, that is correct. Q.—And on page 203, of the first part of the same document did you make the following statement? "On a day like this, when seals showed no inclination to sleep, shot guns in the hands of skilful hunters would have done very destructive work to the seal herd, for experienced hunters kill nearly, if not quite as many travelling seals during the course of a season as sleeping ones?" A.—That was correct. Q.—Based on your observations? A.—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—He means by thaf'destructive work" that they would have wounded them, but that they would have escaped. Q.—Do you mean that they would have been caught? A. —I mean a large percentage of them would have been caught, that was the meaning I intended to convey. Q.—Did you not also find at times that even the firing of guns would not disturb them? A.—I do not recollect of a case of that kind, where the firing of guns would not disturb, unless they might be quite a distance removed from the ves- 486 lift It io 20 40 So 60 (A. B. Alexander—Cross.) sel, or boat possibly, but I do not have a recollection of anything of that kind. Q.—Would you take communication of Senate Documents, Dock 137, paragraph 2, pages 50, 51, 52, 53, and 54 and say if the information therein contained was obtained from you? A.—I think that the American schooner "Mary Ellen" in 1884, 1885, 1886 and 1887 was not obtained by me. Q.—No portion of it? A.—No portion of it, but the "Favourite," D. McLean, master, 1886 and 1887 and the "Henry Dennis," of 1891, was obtained by me. The "Mary Ellen" was not. Q.—What data had vou to give the information as to the "Favourite" in 1886 and 1887? A.—The log which the captain gave me. Q.—So that you were satisfied that the figures as printed on page 53 of this book are according to the log of the vessel for the two years? A.—I got it from the log and submitted the manuscript to the printer. If they made a mistake I do not know, I have not the notes with me that I gave, but I could obtain them probably. Q.—Where is the log? A.—The log was in the captain's possession. I got this in Ounalaska in 1895,1 think, on board the vessel the time I was on the "Dora Sieward." Q.—And you are satisfied that is correct? A.—That is probably correct. Q.—Now you say that you examined the "Carolena" in 1888? What time of the year was it you examined her? A. —That was along about the middle of July, I should think. Q.—Were you alone when you examined her? A.—No, sir. Q.—With whom were you? A.—I was in company with Captain Daniel of the "Albatross," C. H. Townsend, whose name is there; Lieut. Pamister of the Navy; Lieut. Johnston and some sailors. Q.—Would you swear that the "Carolena" was not bu.Ht with Oregon pine or Douglas fir? A.—I would not swear she was not built of it. Q.—You did not find that she was not built of that kind of wood? A.—I think she was built of. some kind of soft wood. Q.—Do you call Oregon pine soft wood? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do 3'ou call Douglas fir soft wood also? A.—It comes under the head of soft wexid. Q.—When you saw the "Carolena" she was in a dilapidated condition, was she not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—She had been lying on the beach, from the best of your information, since 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Without any attention being given to her? A.—There was no attention given to her to my knowledge. Q.—And the value that you put on her is from the examination that you had made of her then? A.—Yes, sir, as compared with other vessels of a similar type and age. Q.—Can you speak from actual knowledge of any vessel' that you would compare with the "Carolena"—the cost "of building any other vessel of the same type or same age that would compare with the "Carolena"? Can you speak from actual knowledge? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Well, what vessel? A.—A vessel that my father owned called the "Village." She was a vessd probably a little larger than the "Carolena" but of the same type, and built probably about the same time. Q.—Built where? A.—I think she was built ■ in Essex, Massachussetts, but I am not positive as to that. Q.—By whom was she built? A.—I cannot tell you by name. Q.—You can not speak as to the cost of building that other vessel? A.—-I know what she was sold for and what she IO 20 30 40 60 (A. B. Alexander—Cross.) was bought for when she was about the same age as the "Carolena." Q.—Where was she sold? A.—In Gloucester, Massachussetts. Q.—When? A.—About 1878 or 1879. I should think about that. Q.—And you base the valuation that you put upon the "Carolena" on the sale of that vessel? A.—Well. I have her in my mind now. Q.—Have you in your mind any other vessel which you can bring forward as a point of comparison with the "Carolena"? A.—Yes, I have quite a number of vessels in my mind which I could compare.. Q.—What are they? A.—Vessels of a similar size and about the same age. Q.—What are they? A.—Fishing vessels. Q.—What name? A.—The "Romp" for one. Q.—What other? A.—A vessel by the name of the "Island Belle." Q.—Have 3'ou an3' personal knowledge as to the cost of these two vessels? A.—I know what they sold for. Q.—Where? A.—In Gloucester, Mass. " Q.—When? A.—The "Island Belle" was sold in 1882 and she was about the same size as the "Carolena." The "Romp" was, I believe, sold one or two years earlier than that date. Q.—And it is on that also that you base your valuation? A.—Possibly on that. Q.—They were old vessels? A.—They were old vessels. Q.—And they were sold as second hand vessels? A.— Yes, sir, they were a similar tvpe to the one we are speaking of. Q.—And thev were sold on the eastern coast? A.—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—What price did these vessels sell for? A.—The "Village" I have reference to probably might have been ten tons larger than the "Carolena." She sold for $1,000. She was about the same age as the "Carolena" when I saw her. The "Romp," when I saw her, sold for $1,800 about. I am not quite positive. Mr. Beique:—In making 3'our valuation of the "Carolena" did you bear in mind that she had been practical^' rebuilt in 1884? A.—Well, judging from her looks when I saw her, if she had been re-built in 1884, the work was not very substantially done. Q.—You did not take the re-building into consideration in making your valuation? A.—I am taking her as she was at that time basing it on what she was in 1886 and what I saw in 1888. Q.—When you saw her you did not know that she had been practically rebuilt in 1884? A.—No, sir. Q.—Therefore you did not take that into consideration? A.—Not at that time. There was no evidence of it that I could see. Q.—Do you know Mr. Williams, whose name appears here? A.—He was special agent, I think, on the Pribyloff Islands. I met him. Q.—Do you know if he has any experience as to the value of vessels? A.—J do not know. Q.—Well now, referring to this document, doc. 137, paragraph two, pages 113 and 114. . The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What year is that? Mr. Beique:—That is in 1894. ssse^afiHi io 20 30 40 SO 60 488 (A. B. Alexander—Cross.) Q.—A Senate document is it? Mr. Beique:—Y'es, it is his report. To Witness:—Q.—Look at this document and I will read the following from your report: "On the next day 54.8 north latitude, 157.4 west, we saw our first seals, 20 in number, 12 of which were sleepers. In the afternoon we saw six seals, about half a mile from the vessel, feeding in a bunch of seaweed. The sea at that time was perfectly smooth with a light air astern. The two hunters and myself started out in a boat to watch them and to see how near we could approach without disturbing them. We soon learned they were unusually tame as we approached near enough to touch one with a spear pole. They showed little sense of fear, notwithstanding we were within about 30 feet of them for about ten minutes, diving under the sea weed and constantly thrusting their heads through. It seemed to afford them great pleasure. They paid little attention to us and seemed almost indifferent as to how near we approached as we did frequently. This caused the hunters to exclaim several times: 'if we only had a gun we could kill them all.'" Is that correct? A.—Yes. Q.—On page 116 of the same volume, did you make the folowing report: "Every hunter reported seals numerous about half of the number being asleep. They slept in bunches of six and eight, and when aroused from their slumbers were very tame, but owing to the inexperience of hunters with spears, in a comparatively rough sea, the sucessful throws were few and far between. Had the hunters been provided with shotguns instead of spears it is safe to say that a hundred or more seals would be nearer the da37's catch." Did you make that report? A.—Yes. Q.—And you were referring to white hunters? A.—These were white hunters in the boat with spears. Q.—You consider that white hunters with guns would have more success than with spears? A.—I should think so. Q.—For how many years have you been an employe of the United States Government? A.—Since the spring of\ 1886. Q.—And you are still in their employ? A.—Still in their employ, yes. Q.—And you have helped in preparing the defence of the United States? You have been collecting data and making reports on the various forms of seal life? A.—I have taken no action in the case. I have furnihsed data and made my reports, that is all. Q.—You have stated that when you examined the "Carolena" you did not notice that she had any copper fastenings? A.—I did not see any. I would not swear that she had none in any part of her, but I did not see any. I saw spikes. Q.—She may have had without your seeing? A.—Possibly, but she was not all copper fastened. There were some places where I could see spikes, and they surely were not copper. Possibly there might be copper in her, but she was not what I would call a copper-fastened vessel. Q.—You said that her lines were primitive as compared to modern schooners? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What do you mean by that?* A.—She was what they call an old-fashioned type. She was full bow. She was full all over. She had but very little dead rise, and she had very full lines from bow to aft all over. She was what you would call an old-fashioned type of vessel. IO 20 30 40 SO Go (A. B. Alexander- Q.—Would you say from what you have seen that she was not a fast sailer? A.—She could not be considered a fast sailer, never having seen her sail, but judging from her lines. Q.—If, as a matter of fact, she was found to be a fast sailt . you would not be a good judge as to the proper lines of a vessel ? A.—If she were a fast sailer I would not be a good judge, but I doubt it. Q.—You doubt it? A.—I doubt she was a good sailer, compared with the modern vessels. I am not comparing her with her own class. I am comparing her with the modern type of vessels about which you spoke. Q.—What vessels that are known here would you mention as being modern and fast sailers? A.—I do nnot know any modern fast sailers to compare in size with her, but take a type of vessel like the "Agnes Macdonald" or the "Zillah May," belonging to this port, a little larger boat. Q.—You cannot name any British Columbia schooners that you consider fast sailers? A.—The "Agnes Macdonald probably a fast sailer. Q.—She is a big vessel? A.—Take the "Zillah May." She is here. Q.—What tonnage is she? A.—I think about 60 tons. Q.—What vessel about the tonnage of the "Carolena" would you mention as being a faster sailer, in your opinion? A.—I do not know of any other vessel of about that tonnage in British Columbia that is a fast sailer. Q.—Do you know any in San Francisco? A.—The nearest approach of any vessel that I know around here of a very good sailer would be the Casco, and she is even larger. Q.—What tonnage was she? A.—I should judge she was nearly 60 tons possibly. Q.—So that you cannot name any vessel about here from 30 to 40 tons that you consider good sailers? -A.—I do not know of any. Re-Direct Examination by Mr. Lansing. Q.—Mr. Alexander, did you ever McLean? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—How long ago? A.—I saw him a year ago this summer. Q.—Was that the first time? A.—I have seen him, but not to speak to him. I have seen him on the street. He has been pointed out to me. Q.—Did you obtain am- data from him in regard to these logs in question? A.—No, sir. Q.—He was not the Captain McLean from whom you received them? No, sir. Q.—Was it from another Captain McLean that you obtained these figures? A.—Of what vessel do you speak? Q.—I speak of the Canadian schooner "Favourite" marked in the report as D. McLean, master, 1886? A.—Yes, I obtained the figures which appear here from Captain McLean of the "Favourite." I obtained them at Ounalaska in 1895. Q.—Not from Captain Alexander McLean, and not from Captain Daniel McLean? A.—No, I never saw that gentleman. The captain I had reference to was the captain of the "Favourite." Q.—Captain Laughlin McLean, was it not? A.—I cannot say as to that, but I think he is still captain of the "Favourite." .Q.—Did you know that Captain Alexander McLean was captain of the "Favourite" in 1886. A.—No, sir. Q.—What year did you say you obtained these? A.—In 1895. O.—In regard to the quotations from your report, upon which you have been examined, is it or not the custom to make »*—,» .rumJAtMifi ■eana »"■ HI IM II 490 (A. B. A lexander—Re-direct—Re-cross.) notes of unusual events? A.—I always make a note of an unusual event. Q.—And not of the ordinary, as a rule? A.—No, sir. Q,—And therefore would you say that these quotations that have been shown you are usual or unusual? A.—They are unusual events, and that is why I made a note of them. Q.—Did you give them as illustrations of unusual events? 10 A.—I did, it would appear so. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Beique. Q.—Would you show in this report any mention that the facts which you mention in your report were unusual facts? A.—I do not know if it mentions that in the exact language. Q.—Did you intend to make to your government a report based on unusual facts? A.—I gave them all the facts I could get a hold of either usual or unusual; anything that came. 20 Q.—Big catches and small? A.—All the same; there was no partiality. Q.—Nothing appears in these reports to which we have referred tending to show that these were unusual events? Mr. Lansing:—I object to that question. It would be necessary to put in the whole report before this Commission in order to show that. Mr. Beique:—The witness has only to refer to the reports if he wants to answer my question. Would you like the re- 3° port to enable you to answer my question? Witness:—It would take a long time to hunt up what I want. Please ask your question direct to me again so that I can understand. The question was read to witness. A.—I think from the way these sentences were put in that it did show that they were something of not a common occurrence. 40 Q.—Can you refer us to any portion of your reports that would substantiate or justify the answer that you have given? A.—I think if that report should be overhauled carefully you will find instances there where seals were equally as wild as you found them tame in that sentence. I cannot point to any paragraph or page. I think you will find somewhere embodied in that report, that which shows the other side as well as this. I would have to read it all through in order to find it out. Q.—But you cannot point to any part? A.—No, not to So any particular place, I cannot. It is two or three years ago and I have never looked at that since. By Mr. Dickinson:—Q.—That one seal that you have referred to that you could not waken by beating on a tin pan, did you remark that 3-011 found nothing in its stomach or was the seal sick? Witness:—No, why I mentioned that fact was this: When you find seals with a full stomach as a rule they sleep more soundly than on an empty stomach. 60 Q.—I did not know but that this seal might be ill when you could not wake him up with a tin pan. A.—He slept well, that is all. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What is 3'our precise official position, and what are your offiJ cial duties? The witness:—On the "Albatross." (A. B. A exanaei io 20 30 40 SO 60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Yes, what is you official position there? The witness:—When I am on the "Albatross" my position is fishery expert. But when I am on shore duty I cannot exactly state what. I am still on the books as fishery expert of the "Albatross," but I am doing elifferent work. I am now investigating reports on the northwest coast as regards the abundance of fish and so on. The Commissioner on the part of the I'nited States:—Q.— Are your headquarters at Blaine? Witness:—I have been at Blaine last summer investigating fisheries there. My principal place is Seattle. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What are the precise duties of 3'our position? Witness:—On the "Albatross" Mr. Townsend and I work together; he belongs to the scientific corps, being the analyst in charge. We both collect together all species of fish and all other animals that we can, and when we are at sea there is a good deal of deep sea dredging carried on and we gather up the contents of the bag which goes to the bottom and take it to the laboratory and classify it and send it to Washington. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What are you called, in a general way? Witness:—Generally, we might be called collectors. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Getting up facts. Witness:—Getting all data and information possible bear ing on the subject. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I suppose Mr. Alexander, we are to understand that the reports tha you made, to the extent that they have been read, narrated true circumstances? Of course you will say yes. Witness:—They are truthful to the extent they go and subject to any qualifications. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—You reported facts. I will expect you to say so, of course, because that is what any honest man would do. The examination of the witness closed. Mr. Bodwell:—I beg to hand in for the purpoe of filing, the extract from Mr: Bragg's book which has been referred to. Document filed as Exhibit 27 G. B., Claim No. 1. Mr. Charles E. Raynor was called as a witness on the part of the United States, and duly sworn. Examination In chief by Mr. Warren. Q.—Capt. Raynor, where were you born? A.—I was born near the city of New York, Long Island. Q.—When did you first engage in the business which took you on the sea? A.—In 1868. * Q.—When did vou come around to San Francisco? A.-— In 1871. 492 (C. E. Raynor—Direct.) Q.—Did you sail out of San Francisco shortly after your arrival on a deep water vessel? A.—I sailed out of San Francisco again in about two weeks. Q.—Have you been engaged as, a master mariner or n some capacity on a vessel from that day until the present time? A.—No, sir. Q.—Well, a great portion of the time? A.—I believe the first vessel I was master of was in 1875. Q.—And from what port did you sail? A.—From San Francisco. Q.—You have been sailing ever since you came around? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And you have been a master how long? A.—Since 1875. Q.—What was the first year you had charge of a sealing vessel? A.—In 1886. Q.—Prior to' that time had you been out on any fishing 20 vessel or on any voyage that would take you among the seals or into Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir; I had been sailing master, of the schooner "Otter" out of San Francisco in 1880? Q.—Did you go into the Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many years were you in the Behring Sea between 1880 and 1886? A.—Three years. Q.—What boat were you on in 1886? A.—The "San Diego." Q.—What boat were you on in 1887? A.—The "Allie I. Alger." 30 Q.—As master? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where did you sail from? A.—Seattle. That is, the vessel was built at Seattle, but I went to San Francisco and fitted her up. Q.—You were master of the "San Diego" in 1886? A.— Yes, sir. . Q.—What boat were you sailing on in 1888? A.—I was on the "Alger." Q.—And in 1889? A.—I was in the "James Hamilton Lewis." 4° Q.—As master both years? A.—Yes. Q.—The "James Hamilton Lewis" was the old "Ada?" A. —Yes. Q.—In 1890 what boat were you in? A.—I was sailing from San Francisco down the coast; I was in the merchant service. Q.—In 1891 were you in any sealing vessel, Captain? A. —No, sir, I have not been sealing since 1889. Q.—Were you in Victoria in 1886? A.—No, sir, I was not. Q.—Were you here in 1885? A.—No, sir. Q.—Or in 1887? A.—Xo, sir. Q,—What experience did you have in those days with regard to the construction of vessels? I believe you superintended the construction of the "Allie I. Alger," did you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where? A.—At Seattle. Q.—Did you know the cost and the quality of all the material that, went into her? A.—Yes, sir; I bought it. Q.—Were you acquainted with the general market for the 60 sale of vessels of the class largely used for the purpose of sealing in the years 1886 and 1887? A.—Well, I have a general knowledge of it. I never bought any of this kind of vessels myself or sold any of them. Q.—Were you posted as to the current prices, or reported prices in these years? A.—Y'es, I heard it talked about sometimes. Q.—Did you outfit the various ships in which you sailed 3'ourself? A.—I always made out the list for provisions and 10 20 40 6o (C. E. Raynor—Direct.) outfit in general, and also signed the bills before they were paid. Q.—So that you were acquainted with the prices of the various articles which went on board the ship? A.'—Yes. Q.—Are you able to distinguish between what constitutes a ship's outfit? Mr. Peters:—Is this outfit at San Francisco or in Victoria? Mr. Warren:—When we come to details I will tell you. I am asking his experience. To the witness: Q.—I believe you outfitted always at San Francisco or Seattle, did you not? A.—I did. Q.—I suppose, Captain, that you are acquainted with the details of a sealing outfit? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And also what belongs to the ship? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And are able to distinguish what belongs to the ship from what belongs to the sealing outfit? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You say that you never bought and sold any vessel, but you were aware of the valuation- placed on the "Allie I. Alger" and the "James Hamilton Lewis" by the owners? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—And you have been aware of the value placed upon other vessels by their owners? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—In San Francisco and Seattle? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were you acquainted with the vessels that were sealing out of the port of San Francisco in 1886? A.—I think I can recollect the most of them. Q.—If you can remember the vessels of the class such as were used for sealing purposes that sailed out of the ports of San Francisco and Seattle in the years 1886 and 1887, will you state them? A.—Out of San Francisco there was the "Otter," the "City of San Diego," the "San Diego," the "Van- derbilt." Q.—The "Charles G. Wilson?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "Annie?" A.—I am not sure whether the "Annie" sealed in 1886 or not. I think she made her first season in 1887. Q.—My question covers both years, 1886 and 1887? A.—In 1887 there was the "Annie" and the "San Jose," I do not remember any more out of San Francisco as I know. Q.—The "Rosie Sparks?" A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—The "Lily L," do you know her? A.—Yes, sir, I know her. Q.—The "Lookout?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "Laura?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "Lottie?" A.—I don't remember her, Q.—The "La Ninfa?" A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—The "Kate and Ann?" A.—Yes, sir, I remember her. Q.—The "Helen Blum?" A.—Yes, sir, I remember her. Q.—The "Ellen?" A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—She was a small boat. I believe? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "Challenge?" A.—She sailed from Seattle. Q.—The "Angel Dollie," do you remember her? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "Alpha," do you remember her? A.—No, sir, I don't. Q.—What boats were sailing out of the port of Seattle in these years other than those you have given? A.—I believe they were the "Alger" and the "Teaser," I think. Q.—What was the first year the "Alger" was out? A — That was in 1887. (].—She was built at Seattle, I think? A.—Built at Seattle. iiWiiifiifitii'rtii ififii HH feSa IO 20 40 60 494 (0. E. Raynor—Direct.) Q.—In the years 1886 and 1887 you were frequently in San Francisco, or at least you were there preparing to go to sea, were you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And 3'ou were acquainted with the market value of vessels there, such as were fitted out to be used for sealing purposes? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Did you know the "Carolena?" A.—Yes, sir, I have seen the "Carolena." Q.—I believe 3'ou were seized on the "San Diego" about the same time as the "Carolena? A.—Yes, sir, a few days before. Q.—And you were taken to Ounalaska prior to the time the "Carolena" was taken in there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were you on board the "Carolena" the first day she arrived at Ounalaska? A.—I was. Q.—Before anything had been taken off her? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—-You are positive about that, are you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What did you go on board the "Carolena" for, Captain? A.—Well, I just went on board to see the captain, and out of general curiosity. Q.—You were all in the same boat, then? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You had been seized? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What other boats came in at the time of the "Carolena?" A.—The "Thornton" and the "Onward." Q.—Did you see them come into the harbor, or did they come in at night time? A.—They came in at, the night time, or what we call the night. They came in somewhat between ten in the evening and eight next morning; what time T cannot exactly say, because I was sleeping. Q.—Where was the "Carolena" when you first saw her? A.—She was lying at anchor in Ounalaska harbor. Q.—Who was the captain and who was the mate? A.— Captain Ogilvie was the captain of her, and a man by the name of Blake was mate. Q.—Do you remember whether she carried white men or Indians? A.—She carried white men. Q.—Were you arrested up there in common with these men? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—At Sitka I believe that was? A.—Yes, sir, at Sitka. Q.—While the men were at Ounalaska were Captain Ogilvie or Mate Blake confined in any way as far as you know. A.—No, sir, not that I heard of. Q.—Were 3'ou confined? A.—No, sir. Q.—I believe 3'ou took the crews of the "Thornton" and "Onward" down to Sitka on your boat, did"you not? A.— Yes, sir; that is the Indians, and one white man from each vessel. Q.—Did 3'ou take the toate, Marketich, who has testified in this case to Sitka? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—At Ounalaska was anything taken off the "Carolena" and put ashore? A.—Yes, sir, the seal skins were taken off and two boxes of bread, I believe. Q.—Was that some of the pilot bread? A.—Y'es, sir, two boxes of pilot bread; I seen some guns pased out. Q.—Do you remember Lieut. Cantwell? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you see him take an inventory of the running gear and rigging and provisions of the "Carolena?" A.—Yes, sir, I did. Q.—Did 3'ou stand right there while he did it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I will show 3'ou that inventory, which is an exhibit in this ease. Mr. Peters:—I do not know that he was shown that inventory on his direct examination. I do not know that my learned friend could show him an inventory made by another 495 (C. E. Raynor—Direet.) person for the purpose of refreshing his memo^-; at all events, not at this stage of the case. io 20 Mr. Warren:—I submit that we have a right to show a person an inventory which he stoe>d by and watched being taken down. I submit that I have a right to ask Mm if that is a correct inventory of the articles he saw there. Mr. Dickinson:—And the inventory is already in evidence. Those inventories are marked "Exhibits 1Z Mr. Warren and 13." The Commisioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It is in evidence, but do you seek to refresh the recollection of the witness by it. Mr. Warren:—I propose to ask him if that is a correct inventory of the articles he saw coming off the "Carolena." The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Perhaps the witness would be able to sa3' without looking at that. Mr. Warren:—My onty object in showing it to him was to shorten the matter. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Of course it would be shorter to have it that way, but if the objection is insisted upon I do not see how you can show it to him. 3° Mr. Peters:—For my part I do not insist upon the suggestion. Mr. Warren:—Before I show him the inventory, I will ask him what came off the "Carolena." The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—If he is to see it at all, it is better to show him. the inventory now. Mr. Peters:—In order to save time I will waive the ob- 4o jection. By Mr. Warren:—Just state the provisions that you saw coming off the "Carolena?" A.—What provisions I seen coming off the "Carolena," to my recollection, were two boxes of hard bread. Q.—Pilot bread? A.—Yes, we called it sometimes pilot bread, and sometimes we call it "Liverpool pan tile," and about 12 or 14 sacks of flour. Q.—Now, I show you exhibits 12 and 13 and I ask you if you will state that that is a correct inventory as to the num ber of articles that came off the "Carolena" at that time I 60 will limit that question first to make it apply to provisions only? A.—Yes, sir, I believe that is a correct list to the best of my memory now. Q.—Were you actually present when Lieutenant Cantwell had those things taken off the "Carolena" and put onto the lighter? A.—I was, yes, sir. Q.—And you saw these provisions taken off the "Carolena" and put onto the lighter, did you? A-—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you see Lieut. Cantwell make a memorandum for the inventory? A.—Y'es, I saw him when lite marked them down in a little book he had. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not quite understand. Y'ou ask him with reference to the provisions and he'says that is a correct list. -;To the witness.) Do you mean to limit your answer to the provisions, Captain? 10 496 (C. E. Raynor—Direct.) Witness:—Y'es, to the provisions. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You are not speaking of the other articles on the list? Witness:—No, sir, I cannot tell all. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I asked that question merely to have the record right. Direct examination by Mr. Warren continued: Q.—How long were you in Ounalaska? A.—I cannot tell the length of time I was there, but I think it was somewhere about five weeks. Q.—How long was the "Carolena" th A.—The "Car- 20 olena," before the crew went down, I think, was about five or six days; that is, her crew, with the exception of Captain Ogilvie and the mate. Q.—How did Captain Ogilvie and the mate go down to Sitka? A.—On the revenue cutter "Corwin." Q.—You say they were not confined in Ounalaska? A — No, sir; not that I heard of. Q.—Did you see them ashore? A.—Yes, sir. I saw them ashore, and was ashore with Captain Ogilvie. Q.—Did you see the mate, Blake, ashore? A.—1 elid. Q.—Were they allowed to sleep on board their boats, so far as you know? A.—Y'es, sir, so far as I know. Q.—Did you sleep on board your own boat? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were any orders enforced that you should not leave ,0 the vessel? A.—No, sir, I never heard of any. Q.—Well, they were not enforced? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did the crew of the "Carolena" go down with you on the "San Diego" to Sitka? A.—No, sir. Q.—How were they taken down? A.—They went to San Francisco on the steamer "St. Paul." Q.—The crew never were taken to Sitka? A.—No, sir. Q.—After you got to Sitka, Captain Raynor, what steps were taken by the officers in regard to your arrest and detention? A.—Well, they told us that .we could consider our- 40 selves under arrest. Q.—When you say that you include Captain Ogilvie and the mate, Blake? A.—Yes, sir, I would include the whole of us—the captains and the mates of the four vessels. Q.—Were you bound over to appear? A.—We were bound over on our own recognizance. Q.—And were you given your liberie/ during Ihe interval? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you take advantage of that liberty? A.—We did. At least for a few days everybody went around. We were 5° on our own recognizance, and they went for four or five days and then surrendered it, and then they let us go around just the same anyway. q.—What was the object of their surrendering their recognizance? A.—Well, because we thought it was easier to go and eat and sleep in the jury room than it was to go on board the vessels. Q.—And before they surrendered their bail they had lived on board their vessels, had they? A.—Yes, sir. 6o q.—That includes Captain Ogilvie and Mate Blake? A.— Yes, sir. q. And so far as you know the officers of the other ships that were ther? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—These ships were the "Thornton" and the "Onward?" A.—Yes, sir. q. And how big was this jury room and in what building was it? A.—It was in the court house. The room, I should think, was about 30 feet long by about 15 broad. 497 C. E. Raynor—Direct.) Q.—Were they compelled to sleep in that room or to remain there—that is, before the trial we are talking of now? A.—No, sir, they could have gone on board the vejjsel and slept on board her, or whatever they liked. Q.—The fact is that they actually selected this place to sleep in preference to the vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—During the da3' they were confined within the limits io of the court house? A.—Not at all. » Q.—Did you see Captain Ogilvie and the mate in tho streets at Sitka? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And no guard was placed over them? A.—No, sir, there was never any guard placed over us until after the trial. Q.—T am talking of the time before the trial. Did you see the captains and the mates of the other vessels going about? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where did they board? A.—They ate up in the jury room. Q.—Who provided their board? A.—The marshal. Q.—How long a time elapsed between the time you were notified you would have to appear for trial at a later day and the day that you actually did appear for trial? A.—I cannot just tell, but I think it was about two weeks. The Commissioners then rose. 20 30 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 15,1896. At 10.30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. 50 4° Direct examination of Captain Raynor resumed by Mr. Warren. Q.—I believe we are examining you as to what occurred at Sitka before the trial of the captains and mates of the three or four vessels that were there. How long a time elapsed between the time that you considered yourself under arrest and the time of the trial? A.—Well, I couldn't say positively as to that. I think somewhere about three weeks. 1 couldn't say positively. Q.—The mate, Marketich, went down on your boat to Sit- ca? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When yon got there, was there any witness to make complaint against you? A.—No, sir, none. Q.—The marshal merely told you that you would consider yourself under arrest? A.—Yes. Q.—When did the captains and mates of the other boats arrive? A.—They arrived on the "Corwin," I think, three or four days afterwards. Q.—After the "San Diego" arrived? A.—Yes, sii. Go Q.—in speaking of the passage from Ounalaska to Sitka on the "San Diego," the mate, Marketich, said that the boat was half full of water. Is that true? A.—No, sir; it wasn't. Q.—Was there any unusual amount of water in the "San Diego?" A.—No, sir. Q.—Was there any comfortable place for him to sleep aboard the boat? A.—There was. 32 IMA ss 498 (C. E. Raynor—Direct.) Q.—Where did he sleep? A.—He slept in the forecastle. Q.—As good a bed as he had in the "Onward?" A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—In the quarters provided for the mate? A.-Y'es, sir; the same quarters. Q.—Your mate, I believe, went down on the "Corwin?" A. —Y'es, sir. 0 Q.-s-And Marketich lived in the forecastle of your boat on the trip? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—After the arrival of the captains and mates of the "Thornton" and "Onward," were they complained against formally? A.—Yes, sir; they were. Q.—Were they arrested in the same.manner that you were? A.—Y'es, sir, the same. Q.—Were they restrained of their liberty in an3r way up to the time of the trial? A.—No. sir. Q.—Now just tell the Commissioners about where the 20 mates and captains slept at Sitka before they went to the jury room. I believe the "Carolena," the "Onward" and "Thornton" were left at Ounalaska, so prior to the time they went to the jury room where did these men sleep? A.— They slept aboard the "San Diego." Q.—That is your boat? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Did they have their own bedding? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Had they taken it off their respective boats? A.— Yes. sir, thev had. Q—And carried it to the "San Diego?" A.—Y'es, sir. 3° Q-—Did the.v have their own bedding, their mattresses? V.—Yes, sir. Q.—And about how long did they stay on the "San Diego" before the.v decided to go into the jury room and sleep? A. —I think it was three days. Q.—When they surrendered their personal bail and asked to be allowed to sleep at the jail, did they? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now is that just the way the thing occurred, or were they compelled to go to the jury room and sleep? A.—No, sir, that is just the way the thing occurred; they done it of 4° their own self; asked the marshal to let them sleep there and also eat there. Q.—And he complied with their reeiuest? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—It was a step laken for their personal comfort, was it? A.—Y'es, sir. The3' done it because they didn't like—of course the "San Diego" was anchored some wa3Ts off shore, and they didn't like to pull back and forth aboard of her to get their meals and sleep. -I also done if myself on the same account. r0 Q.—When they went into the jury room did they take the same bedding thai Uiey brought off their respective boats off the "San Diego?" A.—They did; yes, sir. q.—From the "San Diego" to the jury room? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And during the time that they slept in the jury room did they make use of this bedding? A.—Yes, sir; all the time. Q.—Was there any abuse on the part of any federal official there? A.—I never seen any nor ever heard tell of any. Q.—Did you ever hear any complaints on the part of any 60 one? A.—I did not. Q.—What fare was provided by the marshal for you men? A.—Well, we had fresh meat, beef, and fresh fish, potatoes and bread, and so on. Q.—I don't care for the details of it. Was it good or bad? A.—YTes, sir; it was good. Q.—As good as these men had aboard their ships? A.— Yes, sir, I should say as good as I.ever had aboard of a ship. Q.—You had no complaint to make? A.—I did not. 499 10 20 (C. E. Raynor—Direct.) Q.—Did you hear the others complain of their food; any scarcity? A.—No, sir, not at all. Q.—Had all you wanted to eat? A.—Yes, sir. - Q.—Were Captain Ogilvie and Mr. Blake there? A.— They were. Q-—At the same table and had the same fare as you had? A.—They were; yes, sir. Q.—Was the table in the jury room, or.did you eat somewhere else in the building? A.—There was a table in the jury room. Q.—Brought in at meal time? A.—It stayed there all the time, sir. Q.—There was room in this place, then, for a table to stand in addition to the room for the men to sleep? A.—■ Yes, sir. Q.—How many meals a day did you have there? A.—I ate three meals. Q.—Now, coming to the trial. Were you there at the same time that all the rest were there? A.—Same day; I was there the same day, yes, sir, but after the other trials. Q.—I believe that you waived a jury? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Because one was not to be had .short of Juneau? —Yes, sir. Q.—The others were tried by jury? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And for the accommodation of Captain Hooper you waived a trial by jury? A.—Yes, sir; not Captain Hooper, ,0 but Captain Abby. Q.—Captain Abby was of the "Corwin" that year? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Before the day of the trial Captain Ogilvie had disappeared, I believe? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—He never was tried? A.—No. sir. Q.—So that he never was detained or imprisoned? A.— No, sir, he was not. Q-—What do you know about the illness and disappearance of Captain Ogilvie? Just tell the Commissioners from the time of the arrival at Ounalaska until he finally disappeared at Sitka? A.—Well, in Ounalaska when I went aboard the "Carolena," that was probably four or six hours after her arrival there, T eouldn't say just exactly what time it was, I found Captain Ogilvie in his'berth sick, and he told me that he had been suffering from syphilis and had been taking potash for it, and that he had pains and aches all through him—through his bones and everything. Afterwards I heard the surgeon of the "Corwin" say that the potash had gone to his brains. Q.—Without detailing what you heard up there, Captain, just tell what occurred and what you saw. Was he treated by the surgeon or physician of the "Corwin?" A.—He was. Q.—And was he, so far as you observed, properly taken care of? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Was he taken by the surgeon of the "Corwin" to Sitka? A.—Yes, sir, he was. Q.—And they gave him some extra attention, did they? A.—Yes, sir. When he arrived at Sitka he seemed to be pretty well. He was around with us all the time, and 1 never heard him make any complaint of anything. One day he was missing. Q.—Just complete the story about it. What became of him? A.—Well, he was missing, and I couldn't tell exactly how long afterwards, it was a month or six weeks, anyway, we found him out back of the Indian village with his throat cut. 40 SO Go soo io 20 30 C. E. Raynor—Direct.) Q.—And was there any evidence about him to indicate as to whether he had committed suicide? A.—He had a razor grasped in his right hand. Q.—Did you actually see this with your own eyes? A.— Yes, sir, I did. Q.—I believe you stayed in Sitka longer than any of the others that were detained there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that after Marketich and the others, the captain of the "Thornton," the captain of the "Onward," and their respective mates had left Sitka you still remained? Then it was that Captain Ogilvie's body was found? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Why was it that you stayed longer than any of the other captains in Sitka? A.—Well, I had a longer sentence. Q.—To shorten it. I believe 3'ou were sentenced to a term of imprisonment without any fine? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the others to a shorter term with a fine? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Were you present at the trial of the mate, Blake, for instance? . A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Tell the Commissioners what took place there, just in in a short way? A.—Well, I don't know— Mr. Bodwell:—I suppose you are not trying to prove the record of the conviction, Mr. Warren? Mr. Warren:—I am trying to contradict the mate, Marketich when he said the judge called them "robbers." The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Ask the question directly. Question withdrawn. By Mr. Warren: 40 50 60 Q.—Were there any insults heaped upon Blake at his trial so far as you observed? A.—I never heard of any. Q.—Did the judge taunt or accuse these men as being common criminals? A.—No, sir, he did not. Q.—Were you present at the trial of the mate, Marketich? A.—Y'es, sir, I was. Q.—Did any such proceedings occur there? A.—No, sir. Q.—Any such remarks made? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were there any complaints made by any of the mates or captains as to the -manner in which thev were treated there? A.—No, sir. Q.—Or the words that were used in reference to them? A.—No, sir, I never heard of them. Q.—Did you hear the word "robbers" used in the charge of the court? A.—I did not, no such word. Q.—For how long after the trial were the mates and captains confined? A.—About 15 days. Q.—Tell the court where they were confined during that time? A.—Well, they were in the jury room. Q.—The same room as before? A.—The same room as be*- fore. The room was about 30 to 35 feet long by about 15 feet wide. Q.—What liberty did they have? A.—Well, they could go all over the top of the court house, in the court room and all around out around the porch, down in the yard, in fact, anywheres over Sitka, by going and asking permission of the marshal. Q.—Did you ever see any of these men outside of the jury room, or away from- the immediate vicinity of the court house during this time of confinement after that first sentence? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Where did you see them? A.—Well, I have seen them out in the street around Sitka and in different stores; I couldn't give the name of the stores, who kept them. J 501 io 20 30 40 SO 60 C. E. Raynor—Direct.) Q.—Did you yourself go out during that time? A.- yes. Q.—Were any of you locked in or guarded during that, time? A.—Well, there was none of us locked in at all; they had a man up there for a few days who was supposed to be a guard, but he never stopped us from going anywheres that we wanted to. Q.—After the 15 days had elapsed which you speak of as being the time you believed the other mates and captains served, tell us what occurred, how they were released? A.— Well, the marshal released them and they went right away on the steamer to Victoria. Q.—Were they released in order to take a boat to Yictoria, did it not leave the next day? A.—Yes, sir. They were released at the time the steamer was there, so they could take the boat and not be detained in Sitka any longer than possible. Q.—After the sentence of the court was there any difference in the treatment of the men, both as to the fare that they were given and as to the place where they were allowed to sleep, and as to the bedding they had? A.—No, sir, none at all. Q.—The same as they had before the sentence of the court? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You remained in Sitka how many days after the others had gone, that is, confined? A.—Confined 15 days. Q.—And then you left Sitka? A.—I left Sitka about 20 days after they did. Q.—It was during this 15 or 20 days that the body of Captain Ogilvie was found, was it? A.—Yes, sir. §S§i Q.—Coming back to Ounalaska and the "Carolena" specifically. You say you were aboard the "Carolena" about tour or six hours after she arrived in Ounalaska. Did you, at that time, see the guns of the "Carolena" at Ounalaska? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Will you tell the Commissioners how you know they were the guns of the "Carolena," how you were able to separate them from the guns of other vessels to distinguish them? A.—The guns were all packed, that is, they were all marked with a piece of canvass and the name of the vessel that they belonged to wrote on them. Q.—How many shot guns did the "Carolena" have? A.— She had four shot guns. Q.—Do you remember the names of any of the hunters? A.—No, sir, I couldn't say that I do. Q.—Do you not remember the name of one hunter?. Do you remember the hunter Shields, or elid you not know him at that time? A.—I was not acquainted with Shields at th time. Q.—What can you say in regard to whether or not you knew of your own knowledge that everything was taken off the "Carolena" when this inventory I showed you yesterday (Exhibits 12 and 13) was taken? A.—Well, I was in the "Carolena," I was aboard the "Carolena" and I looked down the hold at that time and I didn't see anything else left there; I didn't go down to examine it. Q.—Were you in a position where you could see down into the hold of the "Carolena?" A.—Yes, sir, I was standing on her deck alongside of the hatch. Q.—When the captain was taking this inventory? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Now, be took an inventory of the stock of the "San Diego," I believe? A.—Yes, sir, he did. Q.—Was it correct? A.—It was correct, yes. IO 20 30 502 (C. E. Raynor—Direct.) Q.—Did you see the canoes of the "Carolena?" A.—I did, yes, sir. Q.—Was there anything extraordinary about those canoes? A.—The only thing that-1 remarked about the canoes different from any other canoes they had some ribs in them, that is the only thing I see on the canoes. Q.—They were the regular canoes in use at that time by the Indians, were they, with that exception? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember whether or not the "Carolena" had a yawl boat at that time? A.—To the best of my memory, she had a boat. Q.—When do you think you saw the yawl of the "Ca,ro- lena?" A.—There at Ounalaska. Q.—At the time the inventory was being made? A.—Yes, aboard of the vessel when I went aboard of her, I believe. Q.—On the shore or attached to the boat? A.—It was aboard of the vessel when I went aboard of her, I believe. Q.—Then you are quite positive they had a yawl at that time? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You had no information where it came from, of course. A.—No, sir; I did not. Q.—Since that time, have you seen the "Carolena," captain? A.—No, sir, I have not seen her since that time. Q.—Were you not in Ounalaska in 1887? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were you taken to Sitka in 1887? A.—I was; yes, sir. Q.—The last you saw of the "Carolena, she was anchored in the harbor at Ounalaska? A.-—Yes, sir. Q.—In the stream? A.—In the stream—yes, sir. In the bay. Q.—Do you remember the size of the "Carolena" approximately? A.—I should say the "Carolena" was somewhere between 25 and 30 tons. Q.—I believe you have outfitted vessels for sealing at Seattle? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And at San Francisco? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You have made out your orders for supplies, and have O. K'd the bills before they were paid? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And know the values, cost of an outfit? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—For a white crew? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you ever use Indians? A.—I did not; no, sir. Q.—What is your idea of the cost of the maintenance of a white crew per month, consisting of eleven men? A.—Well, the cost would be about between |8 and $10. Q.—Are you speaking from actual experience, or from 5° what you figure it out to be now? A.—I am speaking from actual experience. Q.—That is the way in which you used to estimate the cost of your voyage? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That would be so much per month per man? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—When you say from $8 to $10, what do you mean? A.—$8 to $10 per month. Q.—For what? A.—For one man. Q.—That is the Seattle and San Francisco price? A.— 6° Yes, sir. Q.—You have never outfitted in Victoria? A.—No, sir. Q.—You have been in the port of Victoria? A.—Yes, sir Q.—Many times, I suppose, aboard a vessel? A.—Well, I believe I have been in Victoria aboard a vessel altogether three times. Q.—You have been in the harbor of Victoria .aboard sailing vessels? A.—Three times. 40 (C. E. Raynor—Direct.) Q.—You have been in this harbor, and upon a sealing vessel, oftener than that, have you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you are well acquainted with the sealing business out of Victoria—were you in those days? A.—Well, I considered myself so. Q.—I believe the San Diego came in here in 1886, before she went to Behring Sea, didn't she? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were you acquainted with the market vaiue of vessels 10 of the style of the "Carolena" at Seattle in 1880 and 1887, and at San Francisco? A.—I think I was, yes, sir. Q.—What do you think the "Carolena" would have brought in 1886 or 1887 on the market, equipped and ready for sea? Excluding, of course, her sealing outfit? A.—Well, I think she would have brought from $1000 to $1200. Q.—What would you think she was worth at that time? A.—Well, I should say that that would be a very fair valuation of her—from $1000 to $1200. ,,_ Q.—Do you know of any vessels of the size of the "Carolena" being built in 1885 and 1886 at San Francisco? A.— Well, the nearest one I can think of is a little schooner called the "Annie"—she was built in 1885, I think. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—Her tonnage was 25. (4.—What did she cost? A.—Well, the owner told me that, he paid; $11)00 for her. Q.—Do you remember the "Unger?" A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—What is her tonnage? A.—25, I believe. Q.—Do you know who built her? A.—Matthew Turner 30 built her. Q.—Do you know what she cost? A.—Cost $2500. Q.—Do you remember the "Nargai?" A.—Y'es, sir, I remember her. Q.—What was her tonnage? -V.—The same; 25 tons. Q.—Who built her? A.—Matthew Turner. Q.—Of what place? A.—San Francisco. Q.—Where is his shipyard? A.—His shipyard at that time was up at what we call Mission Creek. Q.—Where is it now? A.—In Venetia. 40 Q.—Near San Francisco? A.—Yres, sir. Q.—What did the "Nargai" cost? A.—$2500. Q.—AH ready and equipped for sea? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—In forming your idea of the value of the "Carolena," what do you base that value upon? A.—I base the value upem the prices of other vessels of the same tonnage, or nearly (he same tonnage. Q. - In what ports? A.—In San Francisco and two or three Sound ports. Q-—Excluding or including Victoria? A.—Excluding 5° Yieioriu. Q-—You didn't have accurate knowledge of the market at Yictoria during those years? A.—No, sir; I did not. Q.—To show an experience in this regard, Captain, did you inspect the "Ada' when she was sold at Port Townsend to Mr. Nickerson? A.—I inspected her before she was sold; 3'es, sir. Q.—And for Mr. Nickerson? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—For what purpose? A.—For the purpose of buying . her. Q.—For the purpose of informing Mr. Nickerson? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—As to her value? A.—Y'es, sir. Sir C. H. Tupper:—This is one of the vessels in question, is it not. Mr. Warren:—I won't go into her value; I simply wish to show his experience. To witness:—Q.—You superintended the construction of the "Allie I. Alger?" A.—Yes, sir. um *Bn 10 20 30 40 SO 504 C. E. Raynor—Direct.) Q.—In detail? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know what the "Lillie L" sold for in San Francisco? A.—Well, I have heard that she sold for $1,800. Q.—Wtoat 3Hsas Jher tonnage?, A.—Something over 60. Q.—In what year was she sold^f A.—I believe it was in 1885 or 1886—1 couldn't just tell which. Q.—Do you now who bought the "Lillie L?" A.—C. D. Ladd. Q.—The gun man? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Just off Market street? A.—On Turner street. Q.—Was the "Lillie L" a better vessel.than the "Carolena," or as good? A.—I should say she was a better vessel, ,yes. Q.—Besides being larger? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When you place a value upon a vessel and speak of her as equipped ready for sea, does that value include the cost of putting her in condition for that particular voyage? -A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Exclusive of outfitting her for sealing purposes or for any other particular purpose? A.—Yes, sir; when I speak of the value of a vessel I speak of the equipment that any merchant vessel would have. Q.—Would you say that a bill for ship chandlery, the cost of repairing floors of the cabin, repairing cook stoves, or one cook stove, the cost of mending sails, the cost of rope that was actually used on the vessel before she left, was a part of the sealing outfit or a part of the ship? A.—I should say it was a part of the sip, most decidedly. Q.—I call your attention to Voucher No. 6, Exhibit 10, in the case of the "Carolena," and particularly to the second page of the voucher, and ask you if after reading that you will tell the Commissioners whether you think the articles named in that bill were properly a part of the ship or a part of the sealing outfit? A.—(Examining)—Well, I don't see anything in this bill that could possibly belong to a sealing outfit. Two compasses here might belong to a sealing outfit; the rest of it, I should say, belonged to the vessel. Q.—If the compasses were small compasses such as were used in sealing boats, they would.belong to the sealing outfit? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—If large compasses, such as are used aboard a vessel, they would belong to the vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that I suppose you cannot tell? A.—No, sir; that I can't tell. Q.—In making your answer, does it make any difference as to whether or not these articles are actually made use of before the vessel leaves the port or are carried aboard the ship as extra supplies? And what would you say as to whether they constitute a part of the ship or a part of the sealing outfit? A.—Well, in either case they wouldn't constitute a part of the sealing outfit. Q— I show you Voucher No. 12, of this Exhibit 10, "Carolena," and Voucher No. 11, Exhibit 10, first directing your at- ask you if that is a part of the ship A.—(Examining)—This last article 1 60 tention to No. 10, and or the sealing outfit? can't make out. Q.—That is 19 reef points? A.—No, sir; that bill belongs to the ship altogether. q.—Now, No. 11? A.—(Examining)—In this bill there is 10 yards of No. 3 cotton canvas—that belongs to the ship; also 6 yards of No. 4—that belongs to the ship; 2 balls of twine—that would be long to the ship. This rifle, of course, would belong to the sealing outfit, I suppose. Q.—Now, if that, duck was used on the sails, or other repairs of the sails of the vessel, you mean that if used for the io 20 40 60 ship? A.—Yes, sir i "Carolena" at Ouna -Well, the sails C. E. Raynor—Direct.) sails of the small boat, of course it would belong to the sealing outfit? A.—Yes, sir. Couldn't use No. 3 duck for small boat sails. Q.—Then you know it belongs to the Q.—I believe you saw the sails of the laska? A.—I did. Q.—What condition were they in? were patched a good deal. Q.—Could you tell whether or not that boat had had new spars within the period of a year and a half last past? A.—■ No, sir, I could not—that is a very hard thing to tell without inspecting her spars very closely. Q.—A casual observer of a spar cannot tell whether it is new or old, unless it is buckled or twisted, or very old? A. —No, sir. Q.—Speaking generally, now, and without going into details any further with these vouchers, when you place a value on a ship as being ready to go to sea, you include bills of the nature I have shown you, do you not? A.—Yes, si Q.—I believe 3'ou said you knew about the tonnage of the "Carolena," that it was somewhere between 25 and 30? A. —Yes, sir; between 25 and 30 tons. Q.—What would you say as to carrying 45 boxes of pilot bread for a sealing cruise of four months or four and a half months, say on the "Carolena?" A.—Well, I should say I never heard tell of it being done with white men. Q.—Do you remember of seeing the boxes of pilot bread 30 that actually came off the "Carolena" at Ounalaska? A.— Yes, sir; I seen two there. Q.—And do you remember what size they were—whether 50 or 25 pound boxes? A.—I think they are what we call a 50 pound box. Q.—Would you carry for eleven men on a cruise of four months or four and a half months, 600 pounds of ham and 680 pounds of bacon? A.—No. sir; I should not. Q.—Do you think that a reasonable amount, or unreasonable? A.—I think it a very unreasonable amount. Q.—Would you carry 15 barrels of flour, besides some dozen or 15 sacks? A.—No, sir. q.—is that a reasonable or an unreasonable amount for that,number of men and that length of a voyage? A.—I think it is unreasonable. I don't see what they could possibly do with it. Q.—What was the tonnage of the "San Diego?" A — The "San Diego's" tonnage, I believe, was 36 tons Q.—How many men elid you have on board? A.—1 had 19 men all told.' Q.—White or Indians? A.—White men. Q.—All white? A.—I had one Chinaman. Q.—For a cook? A.—For a cook. Q.—Did you outfit that boat yourself that year—in 1886? A.—I made out a list of all her stores. Q.—Did you know the cost of everything? A.—I do very nearly. Q,.—What would you say to the reasonableness of the sum of $5,147.55 for a vessel of the size of the "Carolena," exclusive of the cost of her guns, ammunition and boats, for a voyage of four months, or four months and a half, from Victoria to Behring Sea and return, carrying eleven men? Mr. Peters:—That question assumes that this witness has a knowledge which he has not got. In the first place, it assumes that he has a knowledge of what things cost at Victoria, which he has not pretended to say. It is also open to the objection that it is asking this witness to decide the very question which your Honours have to decide. 50 20 30 40 60 (C. E. Raynor—Direct'—Cross.) He may give his evidence that an outfit generally costs so much, and in his opinion so much, but when you come to put the very question in the case, I think it is going a lttle further than expert evidence, as this is supposed to be—to a certain extent—can be allowed to go. Mr. Warren:—If the court please, this witness says that he has knowledge of the capacity of the "Carolena," has had experience in properly equipping the vessels, and has used white hunters. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest.v:—Why do you not put the question in the abstracl—a vessel of a certain size, using the figures of the "Carolena," carrying a certain number of men? Mr. Warren:—Without naming the "Carolena?" The Commissioner on the pari of the United States:— Really, Mr.. Warren, is that going to do us any good? We have got his statement of reasonableness—$9 or $10 a month —cannot we make the calculations ourselves, without taking up time now? Mr. Warren:—We do not insist on this question. The Commissioner on the part of the I'nited States:—We are of the opinion, Mr. Warren, if you desire to put the question, that you may do so. Question read to witness. A.—Well, I should say it was very unreasonable. I never heard tell of such a case. Cross-examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Do you know what is in that estimate? Y'ou say that it is unreasonable; do 3'ou know what is in it? A.—I do not know what is in it. Q.—Do you know what the articles cost here in Victoria? A.—No, sir. Q.—Do you know what articles are there? A.—I do not know what articles are there. Q.—What articles are you speaking about when you say it is unreasonable? A.—I am speaking about the articles that we generally carry in a sealing outfit. Q.—AVhat are the3'? A.—There is flour, potatoes, beef, pork, canned goods anel various things. Q.—What are the various things—I want to get at 3'dur idea? A.—I can't exactly itemize everything. Q.—Generally, you say flour, pork, and so on—what else do you say? A.—Pork and beef and various canned goods. Q.—You say that $5,000 of that kind of stuff is unreasonable? A.—Yes, I elo. Q.—Would you say that $970 of that class of articles was unreasonable? A.—Well, no, I would not sa3' that $970 was unreasonable. Q.—And $950.78 would be still less unreasonable, would it not—would it be a very reasonable amount? A.—Yes, sir, I think that would be a reasonable amount. Q—.—Now, Captain, if 3'ou were fitting up a vessel for sea, to go sealing for the first time, you might find yourself launched into a good many expenses which you have not thought of, would you not? A.—Oh, of course it takes mpre to fit a vessel for the first time she goes-sealing than it does afterwards. Q.—Now, suppose 3'ou had a vessel that had never been used in sealing, and 3'ou wanted to put her in first-class IO 507 (C. E. Raynor—Cross) shape, you might find yourself launched into an expense of two or three thousand dollars? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—So that a sealing outfit might cost $2,721.25 and not to be unreasonable? A.—Do 3'ou mean the sealing outfit? Q.—Now, Captain. I mean just what 3'ou were talking about a minute ago—3'ou said you might be launched into an expense of that amount? A.—Well. I mean by that whole outfit, provisions, boats, guns, ammunition, and the whole thing. Q.—You could do all for that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How do you know you could do it for that? A.—Because I have done it. Q.—On what ships? A.—I have done it on the "Alger," and I have done it also on the "Harrison Lewis." Q.—Where did you outfit the "Alger?" A.—San Francisco. Q.—How large was she? A.—She was 75 tons. 20 Q-—How many boats did you have? A.—6 boats. Q.—What did you pay for them? A.—I paid $90 apiece for them. Q.—How many guns did you have? A.—I had seven shotguns and six rifles. Q.—What did you pay for them? A.—$40 apiece for the shotguns. Q.—What did you pay for the rifles? A.—I believe I paid $22.50. Q.—How much ammunition did you buy?A.—Well, I can- 30 not just exactly say. Q.—How much did you buy? A.—I do not think I could tell you exactly. Q.—Tell us generally, then? A.—Well, for the powder I might tell you. Q.—How much did you buy in that instance? A.—I could tell you very near the powder that I bought. I can't say exactly. I think I had about 12 kegs of powder. Q.—At how much a keg? A.—$7. Q.—What powder was that? A.—Double F. G. powder. 4° Q.—American powder? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How much shot did you have? A.—I can't tell you. Q.—What did you pay for it? A.—I can't tell you that either. Q.—What else did you have besides powder and shot? A. —I had some shells. Q.—Loaded shells? A.—No, sir. Q.—What kind of shells? A.—Brass shells—empty shells. Q--—And that is all you had as far as you can remember? co '■?*•—1 had some wads, some hooks for catching seals, knives, and so on. Q.—These are all the expensive articles you had? A.— Yes. Q.—And that is what you refer to when you say you did it for $2,000? A.—I did not say—I said I done it for $3,500, I believe. Q.—That cost you $3,500? A.—I believe that is what I said. g0 Q.—-With that amount of ammunition and your provisions, your bill was $3,500 for outfitting—that is right, is it? A.— Well, my advances to men. Q.—How much was advanced? A.—Well, I can't exactly tell how much was advanced—some had more and some had less. Q.—Well, generally $200? A.—More than that. Q.—$300? A.—I think perhaps about six or seven hundred dollars. wtma i rr Tiintriiiri'-iaaiMMBariBBi 508 11 1 (C. E. Raynor—Cross.) Q.—Well, that would bring it down into the neighborhood of $3,000—$500 for advances would leave you $3,000 for the whole thing? Now, this was in San Francisco, and when? A.—In 1887. Q.—Have you got any account of it? A.—No, sir. I have not. Q.—Y'ou did at the time? A.—I did have. 10 Q.—And you remember it from that account? A.—I remember it very nearly. Q.—Now, then captain, going out sealing one year, and coming in, if you want to start out next season, you find a lot of repairs necessary to your ship, generally, do you not? A. No, sir. I can't say that I do find a lot of repairs necessary. Q.—You find some repairs are necessary? A.—Some repairs. Q.—Now, you are used to keeping ship's accounts—you do keep them aboard your own ship, do you not? A.—I do. 20 Q.—Now what account do you charge these repairs to? A. I charge them to the ship's account. Q.—I know, but do you cahrge them to outfit, or to what account? A.—No, sir. I don't charge them to outfit; I charge them to ship's account. Q.—Do 3'ou keep an outfit account? A.—I do, sir—or did when I was outfitting. Q.—You charge them to ship's acount. What do you mean by "ship's accont?" A.—I mean the ship's account— anything that is to put her in repairs—fit her for sea. 3° Q.—You make these entries every year, do you, to a separate account? A.—I make them every time that repairs is made. Q.—Charge them to the ship's account? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What other accounts did you keep on board your ship? A.—I keep—for ammunition, general sealing outfit, also accounts for advances and -wages paid, and so on. Q.—When a ship is first launched, she has all these things, you say? A.—Well, not all of them. Q.—I mean, about these vouchers that you have been speaking about, and looking at—vouchers 10 and 11 and the other one—she has them ? A.—Yes, sir. She ought to have them to be ready for sea. Q.—Now, then, do 37ou say that these things that you have been referring to, are improper repairs to be put on a ship before she starts out—anything wrong about them? A.— No, sir, I didn't say they was improper to be put on a ship. I think they belong to the ship. Q.—Now, if the ship was going to remain in port, and not 5° go out to sea do you think these things would necessarily be required? A.—No, sir, iffifehe remained in port they would not be required. Q.—Now, then, in 3'our experience as a dealer in ships, have you not found that a ship sells in port for just about the same price if she does not have these little repairs on her? A.—No, sir. Q.—How much difference do you make—what percentage of difference? A.—Well, sometimes very little repairs and 6o expense on a vessel when she is selling will make quite a difference in the selling price of the vessl. For instance, if you take a vessel that is not painted, or . q.—"What difference would there be in her actual value for the purpose of a voyage—what percentage of difference? A. —That would be all owing to what repairs you wanted. Q.—Well, these repairs would not have been looked at there—mostly ship chandlery, is it not? A.—Well, it would be the difference in the . 40 B -*■ 5°9 (C. E. Raynor—Cross.) Q.—Now, captain, I do not want to take you over all these articles. State generally—these are mostly ship chandlery and similar articles? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, would she be much less valuable for the purposes of the voyage if she did not have these articles on board? A.—There would be the difference in the price of the articles. Q.—What did you have to do with the "Lillie L?" A.— 10 I had nothing to do with her. Q.—Do you not know that there was a large sum of money spent on her after she was bought at the price you mentioned? A.—I know there was some money spent on her. Q.—Oh, a good deal, was there not, captain, you remember? A.—I couldn't say a good deal; I couldn't say how much. Q.—Y'ou know there was some money spent on her? A.— I know they put a house on to her—that is, we built her up a little—put an extra cabin on to her—and that like. 20 q,—You built the "Alger"—at least you superintended her construction. What did she cost? A.—The "Alger" cost $1.0,500. q—Where was she built? A.—Seattle. Q.—When? A.—She was started in 1866 and launched . Q.—You mean 1886? A.—1886. Q.—And finished —? A.—She was launched about the 24th or 25th of January in 1887. Q.—Built at Seattle? A.—Yes, sir. 3° Q.—Of Douglas fir? A.—What we call Oregon pine. Q.—Same thing, is it not ? A.—Same thing, I suppose, yes. Q.—That is a good wood for building vessels? A.—Yes, that is considered so. Q.—In fact you do not know of any better, do you Captain ? A.—Not on this coast. Q.—What did you have to do with the "Ada"? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How large was that craft built in Seattle? A.—75 tons. 40 So .60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Cost how much? A.—$10,500. Cross-examination continued by Mr. Bodwel Q.—Did that include her sealing outfit? A.—No, sir. Q.—What do you know about the "Ada"? A.—Well. I examined the "Ada." Q.—Where, in Victoria? A.—In Seattle and Port Town- send. Q.—After she came round from Shanghai? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know that they were offered $10,000 for her in Victoria, and refused it? A.—I do not. Mr. Warren:—If the court please, I asked the witness about the "Ada" if she was brought down from Sitka, and offered for sale in Seattle. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It goes to his competency. The whole of that class of evidence as was explained the other day, goes entirely to the competency of the witness. It is not proof of sales, actual sales, simply goes to show his knowledge of the market. Mr. Warren:—I do not object to the question because it is drawing out incompetent testimony, but because counsel was confusing witness about the fact he was examined about before. Cross-examination continued by Mr. Bodwell; mnmwK i;—^r.:_----—^^-iiiii'ii Sio if io 20 30 40 So 60 (C. E. Raynor—Cross.) Q.—Did you say, Captain, that $10,000 was offered for her in Victoria, and refused when she came round from Shanghai? A.—I never did, sir. Q.—What kind of a ship was this Nargai? A.—She was a fishing vessel, 25 tons. Q.—How rigged? A.—Schooner rigged. Q.—She was built in San Francisco? A.—Built in.San Francisco. Q.—How do 3'ou know Svhat she cost? A.—-Well, I was told by her builders what she cost. Q.—When was she built? A.—She was built in, or at least, was started to be built in 1879, and was launched early in 1880. Q.—And she cost $2,500? A.—Y'es, sir.. Q.—How was she fastened, do you know? Copper fastened, or ordinarj'? A.—She was copper fastened up to her bends. Q.—Copper paint? A.—The bottom was copper painted. Q.—She was a rather cheap ship, was she not? A.—I do not know that she was any cheaper than any other vessel built at that time. Q.—Tell me another? A.—There was the "Onward," a sister vessel to her. Q.—Built at the same yard? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—At ihe same time? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is not a comparison, tell me another? A.—I don't remember. Q.—Can you tell me of another vessel of that size, in those years, that was built for any such price?. A.—I can't now, sir, no. Q.—Y'ou have been thinking this over for the purpose of giving your evidence here. You have been thinking of this valuation for some time, have 3'ou not? A.—I can't think of any other. Q.—You know those people lost money on that contract, do you not? A.—-1 never heard them say they did. Q.—Did you ever ask them? A.—I never asked them, no. Q.—How long were they in business? Are they in business now? A.—Yes, sir, they are in business now. Q.—How did they come to take that contract for that price, if you know? A.—I don't know, I suppose they took it the same as they would any other contract. Q.—In fact, you do not know any of the special circumstances that surround the building of these two vessels, do you? A.—No, sir. Q.—What was the "Carolena" built of? A.—She was built of fir, I think, Oregon pine. Q.—And she was 35 tons? A.—The "Carolena"? I think she was between 25 and 30 tons. Q.—Now, Captain, do you know her exact tonnage? Have you not been told it? A.—I have heard here in this room since I have been here that she was 27 tons, I believe. Q.—Did you not also hear that she was 32 tons? A.—I wouldn't say that I did, not from my memory. Q._You only valued her at $1,000, is that it? A.—$1,200. Q.—What was the ship "Annie" that you speak of? A.— She was a sealing vessel. Q.—Where built? A.—Built in San Francisco. Q.—When? A.—She was built in 1885 or 1886, I wouldn't be sure which year. Q.—Now, describe her? A.—She was a vessel schooner rigged, not a scow bottom. Q.—"What kind of a bottom had she? A.—She had a sharp bottom. Q.—What kind of lines? A.—She had very good lines. The fact of it is, as near as I can tell you, she was built IO 20 30 40 SO 60 (C. E. Raynor—Cross.) something on the model of one of those Italian fishing ves sels, what we call an Italian fishing boat, Q.—How did you come to know anything about it? A.- Because I seen her a good many times, seen her in San Francisco, saw her at Sitka. Q.—Did you ever go to sea in her? A.—I did not. Q.—Know anybod3' else that did? A.—Yes, sir, I knew several. Q.—What did she cost? A.—The owner and captain of her told me he paid $1,000 for her. Q.—How much was her tonnage? A.—35 tons. Q.—Now, do you say that a vessel of that kind could be built for $1,000 fitted for sea? A.—Well, I think the cost- of the vessel probably was more when she was built. Q.—Y'ou would not give it as your opinion here now, captain, and state it on your oath that you think a vessel of that kind in fair condition of repair could be built for $1,000? A.—No, I wouldn't. Q.—And if she sold for that, there must have been some special reason why her value was run down so much? A. —I suppose there was some reason. Q.—When did you first outfit anv ship for sealing purposes? A.—Iu 1886. Q.—Where? A.—San Francisco.- Q.—When did you first outfit a ship in Seattle? A.—In 1888. Q.—How many vessels altogether did you outfit in Seattle? A.—Two. Q.—When did you outfit the other one? A.—1888 and 1889. Q.—What was the one in 1888? A.—The "Alger." Q.—And what was the one in 1889? A.—The "Ada," called the "James Hamilton Lewis." Q.—How man3' men did you carry on the "Alger?" The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—In what year? Mr. Bodwell :--1888. Witness:—On the "Alger" I carried 24 men. Q.—How much pork did 3011 take? A.—Do you mean salt pork? Q.—All the pork you had; how much? A.—I had six barrels of pork and about 150 pounds of ham, and about 150 pounds of bacon, as near as I can remember. Q.—What did you pay for ii? A.—I couldn't tell you the exact price I paid for it. Q.—Y'ou cannot tell how much you had as a matter of fact, can you? A.—Yes, sir, I can tell very nearly. Q.—How much did you pay for it? A.—I could not tell 3'ou. Q.—About how much? You ought to be able to answer right off, captain, 3'ou have made this calculation? A.—I think pork in barrels that 3"ear was worth about, I am not sure, bm I ihink somewhere about $20 a barrel for pork. Q.—Have you any recollection about that now, or are yem just making an estimate? A.—I am just making an estimate, as near as I can remember. Q.—I want to know how near it is, what do you remember abount it, whom did you buy it off? A.—I boughr it off a butcher in Seattle; I couldn't tell you his name now. Q.—Do you think you are within a dollar per barrel of the price? A.—I think I am within a dollar or two. Q.—Well, are 3'ou positive about these things, e'aptain? This is all "I think." We do not know if yo'j have a posi- t'-JiL'r-W-Miy ;i2 IO 20 (O. E. Raynor—Cross.) tive recollection or not, have you? A.—No, sir, I do not profess to having any positive recollection of what I paid for anything. Q.—How much corned beef did jou have? A.—16 barrels. Q.—What did you pay for that? A.—I think I paid $16 a barrel, in fact, I am pretty sure I paid $16 a barrel. Q.—How much flour did you have? A.—I had 60 sacks. Q.—What did you pay for that? A.—Well, that I could not be sure of. Q.—How much sugar did you have? A.—I had six half barrels. ■ Q.—"What did 3'ou pay for it? A.—I couldn't say; somewhere about three cents a pound. Q.—That was in 1886? A.—I am speaking of 1888. Q.—And you paid 3 cents a pounel for sugar? A.—Somewhere about that. I cannot sav what I did pay a pound for it. Q.—Do you know what the price of sugar was in Victoria at that time? A.—I do not know. Q.—Would you be surprised to hear it was 8 cents a pound? A.—Well, I do not know as I would be surprised. Q.—Now, what other provisions did you have? A.—I had potatoes. Q.—What potatoes did you have? A.—I believe when I left Seattle I had three tons of potatoes. Q.—What did the potatoes cost you? A.—I cannot say. Q.—Can you tell us what other provisions you had? A.— I had beef, mutton, fruits, milk— Q.—How much beef did you have? A.—I had four cases of beef. Q.—What did it cost you? A.—I cannot say. Q.—How much mutton did you have? A.—Four cases. 40 60 Q.—What did that cost 3'ou? A.—I cannot tell you what anything cost me individually. Q-—Y'ou don't pretend to say, then? A.—No, sir. Q.—Do you know how much preserved fruits and things of that kind you had? A.—Yes, I know the number of cases Ihad. Q.—How many? A.—I had three cases of table fruit and four cases of pie fruit. Q._What did that cost? A.—I cannot tell you what it cost separately. Q.—What else did you have? A.—I had four cases of string beans and four cases of corn. Q.—You do not know what that cost? A.—No, sir. Q.—What else hael you? A.—I had some raisins and plums, and various things. Q,—And you do not know what these cost? A.—No, sir; I cannot tell you what any one article cost by itself. Q.—What was the toal amount of your provision bill? A. —The total amount of my provision bill was about $1,500. Q.—You say "about"—are you within two or three hundred dollars of the amount? A.—Yes, sir, I am within one hundred dollars one way or the other. Q.—It might be $1,600 or it might be $1,400? A.—Yes. sir. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How long was your voyage and for how many men? A.—I was fitting for eight months, sir, and 24 men. By Mr. Bodwell: Q.—You could board 24 men more cheaply per man than you could 11 men? A.—Yes, sir; I should say it would make a little difference, B -ai io 20 30 40 5*3 (C. E. Raynor—Cross.) ever worked out the difference' A, So Q.—Have you never did; no. Q.—Your experience is that it is a good deal cheaper? A. —I would not say a good deal; I should say it was a little cheaper. Q.—You will let us go this far: that it is something cheaper? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now then, is that the estimate on which you basee your calculation of how much per man it takes to outfit A.—Yes, sir; that and other outfits. Q.—Is the "Alger" a fair sample? A.—Well, she is a fair sample of my own outfit. Q.—Well, a fair sample of what you sometimes pay is $9, sometimes $8, and sometimes $10 per month per man? A. —Between these figures; 3res, sir. Q.—You cannot come any closer than to sav it is from $8 to $10? A.—No, sir, I cannot. Q.—Which do you say happens the bftenest in your experience. $8 or $10 a man? A.—Wed I, I think I find it happens the.oftenest about $9 a man. Q.—Tell me how you made your average? What calculation did you go through? A.—I do not know that I went through any. Q.—When did you come to the conclusion that it cost from $8 to $10 per nntn ? A.—Well, I was figuring on these things when I was sealing. Q.—How did you get at it then? Did you know it the first year you were sealing? A.—I made a calculation on it the first year, yes. Q.—How did you get at it? A.—I suppose I worked it out by figures. Q.—Did you or did you not? A.—I think I did. Q.—When? A — Well, at different times. Q.—Give us one instance when you did it? A.—I figured out the cost in 1886 and also in 1887. Q.—What did you^do it for? A.—I did it for my own satisfaction. Q.—Have you got any of these figures? ' A.—No, sir, I have not. Q.—What reason had you for preparing it then? A.—I do not know that I had any particular reason. A man naturally does a number of things like that at different times. Q.—You say that that amount of flour on board the "Carolena" was excessive? A-—Yes, sir, I think it was. Q.—How many pounds of flour do you allow to a man for one month? A.—I do not know that I could tell you exactly. Q.—You make> bread in loaves on board ship? Can you toll me how much flour would be put into a loaf? A.—I am not a cook, sir—I am not putting flour into loaves of bread. I always figured on the basis for my crew when I had 24 men, on about a barrel .or a barrel and a half of flour a month. -To each man? A.—No, 60 sir, to the ship's crew. A.—For eight months' voy- aling outfit? A.—In Q Q.—For how long a voyage? age. Q.—What do you include in the the sealing outfit? Q.—Yes. A.—I include the boats, guns, ammunition, hooks for picking up seals with, oars, rowlocks, sails, masts, booms, skinning knives, ripping knives, wads for the guns, steels for sharpening knives, salt for silting skins. I believe I have mentioned all. 33 IO 20 40 60 514 [G. E. Raynor—Cross.) Q.—Would you not want tanks? A.—Tanks for sealing outfit? Q.—Y'es. A.—I would not call tanks as belonging to sealing outfit, the3- would more naturally belong to the stores. Q.—Would 3'ou want salt? A.—I mentioned salt. Q.—Salt bins? A.—That would be altogether according to the vessel. In the vessels I have been I have never had any salt bins. Q.—Would you require carpenters work for fixing up the quarters for the crew? A.—Not if the vessel was ready for sea. Q.—Y'ou would not carry 26 men for merchant trading on a ship the size of the "Alger," would you? A.—No, sir, we went and fixed her up after she was built. Q.—If she was not built for a sealer would you not require it? A.—Yes, if she was not built for a sealer we would require the carpenters to fix her up. Q.—And you would want a signal gun, would you not? A.—We generally carry one. Q.—And a fog horn? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And medicines? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And gaffs? A.—I believe I mentioned hooks for picking up seals and it is the same thing. Q.—Y'ou would want fuel and oil? A.—That is all in the stores. Q.—Would you. not want more of them on a sealing voyage than you would on an ordinary voyage? A.—On any voyage of the same length of time 3'ou would need the same. Q.—For the same length of time and the same number of men? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did 3'ou include guns and re-loading tools? A.—I do not know as I included the re-loading tools, but they should be included, of course. Q.—When you were in Sitka after the trial and before, there was a difference as to the manner in which you were treated, was there not? A.—Well, there was this difference then, that we were in the jury room and we were not supposed— Q.—Did you have a guard over you ? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Let him answer the question, Mr. Bodwell. Mr. Bodwell:—He is taking a long time, 3'our Honour, to give what is not an answer to my question, and I do not want to extend this thing beyond all reason. The witness:—There was a difference in this way— Mr. Bodwell:—I can stop him now, 3'our Honour, because he says there is a difference, and that is what I asked him. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That answers the question. Mr. Bodwell:—Now, then, did you have a guard over you before the trial? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were you locked in at night after the trial? A.— No, sir. Q.—The door was never locked? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did a guard stay there at night? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was the guard armed? A.—He was not. Q.—When you went out, did the guard go with you? A.— No, sir. Q.—Who did? A.—Nobody. Q.—Who went out? A.—I went out myself. Q.—Am'body else with you? A.—In fact they all went out. si; IO 30 (C. E. Raynor—Cross.) Q.—You had to get leave? A.—I had to ask the marshal, and by asking the marshal we could go out. Q.—Did you have a light at night? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you sleep on the floor? A.—We slept on a mattress on the floor, yes, sir. Q.—You say you had fresh meat—you mean venison, do you? A.—I mean venison, and sometimes beef. Q.—How often did you have beef? A.—I think probably two or three times a week. Sometimes they could not get fresh beef in Sitka. Q.—Was this in 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were vou not imprisoned afterwards in another year? A.—No, sir. " Q.—You were not there any other year? A.—I was there in 1887, but I was not imprisoned at all. Q.—What were you doing there in 1887? A.—Just called in. The vessel was seized. Q.—You were detained there in 1887? A.—I was detained there until after the trial; that is, I was not detained, but I stayed there on my own accord. Q.—Don't you think you have your recollection a little mixed between 1887 and 1888? A.—No, sir, I have not. Q.—How long were you there in 1887? A.—I cannot say just how long I was there. I was quite a while there, because after the trial they bonded the vessel, and it took me some time to get the bond made out. Q.—How many guns had the "Thornton" that you saw? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Are you asking about the "Thornton" now? Mr. Bodwell:—The witness said the guns were all ticketed, and I asked him how many guns were ticketed that he saw on the "Thornton." The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You are doing this for the purpose of testing his memory? Mr. Bodwell:—Yes, your Honour. To witness:—How many guns were ticketed that you saw belonging to the "Thornton?"MA.—In the "Thornton," 1 believe, there were four shotguns. 60 Q.—How many belonging to the "Onward?" A.—I don't think she had but one shotgun and one rifle. Q.—How many rifles on the "Thornton?" A.—I cannot say. I do not remember seeing any rifles on the "Thornton." Q-—How many rifles on the "Carolena?" A.—There were four. Q.—Four rifles and four shotguns? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you see the yawl? A.—To the best of my memory there was a yawl. Q.—Why do you qualify that? You speak very plainly about other things, but I notice that every time you are asked about the boat you say to the best of your memory? A. —There was a yawl. Q.—Are you sure of it? A.—Yes, I think I saw a yawl on her. Q.—When did you see jt? A.—The first time I went on board of her. Q.—Where did you see it, on the ship? A.—It was alongside of her. Mr. Dickinson:—In the sea? The witness:—Yes, sir. 10 20 4Q 50 6o 516 (('. E. Raynor—Cross.) Mr. Dickinson:—With the hawser? The witness:—Yes, sir, Mr. Bodwell:—What kind of a yawl was it? A.—As I remember, it was a kind of a clinker built boat. Q.—What was it worth? A.—Probably between $16 and $17. Q.—It was not much of a boat, was it? A.—No, sir; it was not much of a boat. It was a small boat and a boat that had been used a good deal. Q.—When did they take the canoes ashore from the "Carolena?" A.—I think they took the canoes ashore, at least two of them, I think they took them ashore the next day after she came in. Q.—And they kept them on shore, did they not? A.— They kept two on shore and she had two canoes to go ashore. Q.—Are you sure about that, now? Did they not take all the canoes on shore? A.—No, sir, they did not. 0-—When you went on board you told us you only found how many boxes of biscuits? A.—1 seen two boxes of bread Q.—And what else? A.—About 12 or 14 sacks of flour. Q.—Any other provisions? A.—No, sir. Q.—When did you see that? How long after she got into Ounalaska? A.—I believe it was two or three days after lhat, but I cannot say positively as to the time. Q.—Was that before or after the "St. Paul" went out? A. —It was before the "St. Paul" went out. Q.—Are you sure about that now? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Y'ou examined these things before that? A.—I nevei said I examined these things. Q.—That is all you saw then? A.—I seen them passed out, that is all. Q.—That is all you saw passed out? A.—That is all in the way of provisions. Q.—How many men did they ship away on the "St. Paul" from Ounalaska of the crews of the seized vessels? A.—I cannot exactly tell the number. Q.—Were there not 19? A.—I cannot say as to that. They shipped away the 'Carolena's" crew and the white men that were on the "Thornton." Q.—Were there not 19 in all? A.—I cannot say as to that. Q.—Do you not know how many white men there were on the "Thornton?" A.—I do not know how many there were. Q.—All the white men on the "Thornton" and all the crew of the "Carolena" except the master and mate were shipped to San Francisco, were they not? A.—They were. Q.—And these 19 men were provisioned for their voyage out of the stores of the "Carolena," were they not? A.—I never heard tell of it, sir. Q.—Will you say they were not? A.—I would not say they were not, only I never heard of it. Q.—When was this inventory taken? A.—It was taken two or three days after the vessel came in. Q.—When you saw these things taken out you tell us it was about the time of the inventory, was it not? A.—Yes, sir, Q.—Now, captain, you did not see that inventory from that day until the time you were showed it in court here yester- day? A.—No, sir, I did not. Q.—And you had no occasion to think of it since? A.— No, sir. Q.—Yrou told us yesterday that the inventory was correct and that 3'ou remembered that these-things were taken out of the ship at the time. (C. E. Raynor—Cross, Mr. Warren:—He was onty asked about the provisions and he said the list was correct in that respect. That was I called his attention to at the time. 10 20 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I called his attention at the time to whether his answer meant the whole list or merely the provisions in the list, and he said it referred to the provisions. Mr. Bodwell: 30 Q.—When you were asked that question yesterday you did take that list in your hand and look through it? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Y'ou did undertake to say it was correct? A.—I undertook to say as to provisions. No man could undertake to go over that inventory and say if all these items are correct. Q.—Having gone through it yesterday, can you tell me anything that was on that ship that is included in this inventory? A.—There were boats, and pans, and tinware, and one thing or another. Q.—How do you remember as to the provisions and remember nothing else? A.—I naturally took more notice of the provisions than I would of anything else. Q.—Why was that? A.—Well, it is a natural thing for a person to do that, and for a seafaring man especially. Q.—And all the provisions they had on board, you would have us believe, were the biscuits and the flour? A.—That is all I saw. Q.—As a matter of fact, do 3'ou think for a minute that that was all the provisions they had on board when they came into port, do you? A.—I don't think about it as I know of, that is all I saw there. Q.—Don't you know that there were six boxes of pilot bread as a matter of fact shipped on board the "S">t. Paul?" A.—I do not, sir. Q.—Would you be very much surprised to hear there were? A.—I do not know as I should be much surprised 4 at anything. Q.—That is to say you would not be surprised to find that amount of bread on board the "Carolena?" A.—Yes, sir, I think I should. Q.—That is one thing that would surprise 3'ou, is it? A.— Yes. Q.—Were you not surprised when 3'ou found them with that amount of flour? A.—No, sir, I think she had a very good amount of flour, in fact a large amount of flour for that time of the year and that vessel. Q.—And do you think they would have a large amount of flour and a large amount of bread and not have a corresponding amount of meat and vegetables and things of that sort? A.—I don't know anything about that; all I know is that I did not see them. Q.—Do you know what day the "Carolena" arrived in port at Ounalaska? A.—Not exactly, sir. Q.—She was seized on the 1st and you were in her company at the time of the seizure? A.—I was seized before her. Q.—Y'ou were in tow of the cutter at the time she was seized? A.—Ifo, sir, I was not. Q.—Were you seized before or after? A.—I was seized before. Q.—You were in Ounalaska when she came in? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "Carolena" was seized at 168:10 west longitude and 55:30 north latitude. That is the position. Now, how SO 60 isa Si8 io 20 30 40 (C. E. Ra3rnor—Cross.) long would it take her to come to Ounalaska in tow of the cutter from that position? A.—Well, that would all depend on circumstances. Q.—I know, but I ask you under ordinary circumstances? A.—If the cutter came right straight along with her I suppose it would take her about 12 or 14 hours. Q.—And she being seized on the 1st August she would be in Ounalaska some time on the 2nd? A.—Yes. Q.—And you say this inventory was taken two or three days after the "Carolena" arrived in port? A.—Yes, sir; that is the best of my memory now. Q.—That is the best memory you have, is it? A.—Two or three days, or it might have been Ave or six days. Q.—Well, I want to know. I want to see what your memory is. Was it two or three days, or was it five or six days? A.—I cannot say; I did not give any certain day—approximately. Q.—But you were ready a minute ago to give a certain day? A.—I said two or three days, but it might have been longer. Q.—But two or three days is your recollection? A.—Yes, sir; two or three days or more; it might have been less—I do not know. Q.—Was it more or was it less? What is your memory? That is all I want? A.—I cannot tell exactly. Q.—Have you no memory about it then? A.—Certainly I have a memory about it. I seen it done. Q.—And you fix it at two or three days? A.—Yes, sir; that is what I said. Q.—Will you look at the last page of that inventory and tell us what day it is dated on? llr. Warren:—I submit that the witness cannot be asked to tell if that is the date of the inventory. He is not competent to do so. Mr. Bodwell:—The witness is competent to tell what is the date at the foot of that inventory. 60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You could read it yourself; that is not an original paper. Mr. Bodwell:—I do not know that I am obliged to, you" Honour. I think I have the right to ask the witness to read it. Mr. Warren:—That is the receipt of the marshal. That is the date of the receipt and not the date of the inventory. Mr. Bodwell to witness:—That date at the bottom of that page of Exhibit 12, C. P... is the 14th of August, 1886; that is the date that you see there? A.—Yes. Q.—Will you swear that was not the date on which the inventory was taken? A.—Well, I cannot swear to that. I say that I do not know exactly. Q.—Will you swear that at that date the "St. Paul" was in Ounalaska? A.—On the 14th August? Q.—Yes, on the 14th August? A.—No, sir, I cannot swear that even. Q.—Don't you know, as a matter of fact, that she had left be*fore that date? A.—No, I do not know as a matter of fact. Q.—Y'ou were there when she did leave? A.—I was. Q.—Did you keep a log? A.—I did not. Q.—How many men did you take in the "San Diego" from Ounalaska to Sitka? A.—I believe I had 25. Q.—And she was a vessel of how many tons? A.—36 tons. if. E. Raynor—Cross—Re-direct.) Q.—How much cabin room had she? What was the size of her cabin? A.—The cabin was 12 feet long. Q.—And these men had all to sleep in that cabin and live there? A.—No, sir. Q.—Where did they go? A.—The Indians slept and the greater part of the men slept in the vessel's hold the same as they did aboard their own vesse; Q.—How many had you in the cabin? A.—I cannot give the exact number without recalling the names to mind. Q.—8, or 10 or 12? A.—No. sir, about four or five. Q.—The "San Diego" did leak, did she not? A.—She leaked about the same as all other vessels. Q.—Is it not so that she was leaking water on that trip? A.—I suppose she would make four barrels a day in 24 hours, no more than that. Q.—How long were 3rou making the trip? A.—I was 12 days. 20 Q-—When 3'ou speak of the bedding the men had in the court house at Sitka 3'ou refer to. their blankets, don't you ? A.—I referred to their blankets and mattresses. Q.—Did they all have mattresses? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Had Marketich one? To iny recollection he had one. If he had one on board the vessel he had one up there. Q.—Y'ou don't know whether he had one on board the vessel or not? A.—No, sir, but I naturally suppose he had. Q.—You are just giving us that sort of evidence as to what 30 you naturally suppose, as a matter of fact, 3'ou have no recollection about it? A.—I have a recollection, they had | blanket. Q.—Did Marketich have one? A.—I believe he did. Q.—Were you one of the parties who went out after Ogilvie or did you find him? A.—I never went our to find him anywhere. Q.—You said "we" found him—you don't mean you were there? A.—If I said "we" found him I made a mistake. I was there after he was found. He was found by two little 40 Indian boys. Q.—When you saw him did he have a razor in his hand? A.—When I saw him first he was la3'ing on his face and the doctor turned him over and the razor fell out of his hand. Q.—Where was that? A.—In Sitka. Q.—I know, but I mean in what part? A.—It was back of the Indian village close to the old Russian cemetery. Q.—Out in the woods? A.—In the brush. Q.—It was away from the village? A.—It was about a hundred yards back of the Indian village. 5° Q.—How long had he been there before he was found? A. —I cannot say, it was somewhere from a month to about six weeks. Re-direct examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—When you were telling us of the cost of the outfit of the "Alger", you said it was $3,500. What 3'ear was that? A.—That was in 1888. Q.—How many men did you have on board as a crew? 60 A.—24 men. Q.—For how long a cruise did 3'OU go out for? A.—We fitted for eight months. Q.—That $3,500 was the cost of the first outfit of the "Alger," was it not? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—That is the first time she had ever been outfitted? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—And everything was new? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—That included six new boats? A.—Yes, sir. MM 520 (C. E. Raynor—Re-direct.) Q.—Did that include the stern boat? A.—The stern boat counted. I carried a hunting boat on the stern the same as the others. I had six boats. 10 20 40 Q.—It included new guns? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the cost of ammunition? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And in fact everything that went on board the "Al so 60 ger" for a trip of eight months with 24 men? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On that trip did the cost of food for the crew average more than from 8 to $10 per month per man? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did that basis which you now give for estimating the cost of the outfit per man hold true in that particular case? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Is that true as regards the several voyages that you have been asked about by Mr. Bodwell? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You say that the cost of the "Alger" built in 1886 and 1887 in Seattle was $10,500?? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—She was not built by contract? A.—No, sir, she was built by day work. Q.—Just tell the Commissioners how that boat was built and why the cost was more than that of other boats? A.— Well, she was heavier framed and heavier fastened, and we built her under adverse circumstances, that is, it was in the winter season and raining, and we had to build a shed over her, and had a good many expenses that would not be on another vessel of her size. Q.—She was copper fastened? A.—No, she was galvanized fastened. Q.—You were asked as to whether you were in confinement in 1886 and 1887 at Sitka. In 1887 you were not confined or imprisoned at all, were you? A.—No, sir. Q.—Or re-arrested? A.—No, sir. Q.—Or complained of personally? A.—No, sir. Q.—So that there is no mistake that you are giving your recollections of the year 1886? A.—There is no mistake at all, sir; it was in 1880. Q,—What time of the year were you taken into Sitka in 1887? —A.—I think 1 got there somewhere about the 20th of September. I cannot exactly place the date. Q.—You were not taken into Ounalaska? A.—In 1887 we were taken into Ounalaska, but I think we only lay there two or three days; it was a very short time. Q.—When you speak of the trial at Sitka in 1887, 3 on speak of the trial of the vessel and not of your own trial? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—You were not tried in 1887? A.—No, sir; it was the trial of the vessel. Q.—Did you see any provisions taken off the "Carolena" and put on the "St. Paul?" A.—I did not. Q.—Did you see any provisions taken off any of the vessels and put on the "St. Paul?" A.—No, sir. Q.—Some of the provisions of the Onward were taken on board the "San Diego?" .A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You remember that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And 3'ou could distinguish them from the provisions that was on board the "Carolena?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—About the date of this inventory, you do not know when the marshal signed his receipt from Lieut. Cantwell for the goods did you? A.—No, sir. Q.—You did not have anything to do with that? A.—No, sir. Q.—You were not there when it was done? A.—No, sir. Q.—You are speaking of your recollection as to when the inventory was taken? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The inventory was taken at Ounalaska, of course? A.—Yes, sir. 10 20 30 4o 60 (C. Raynor—Re-direct—Re-cross. Q.—When you told of Capt. Ogilvie being found back of the Indian village and the surgeon turning him over, was that a resident physician? A.—It was the resident physician of Sitka. Q.—Two little Indian boys came in and reported they had found the dead man and you with several others went out? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You saw him in the original spot in which he was found? Yes, sir. Q.—And in the same position as far as you believe? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—It was not in the woods, was it? A.—Well, it was in the woods; it was in a patch of alder bush. Q.—There is another question which I forgot to ask in direct examination. Do you know whether any of the others paid fines or not? A.—They did not. Q.—They were discharged of their fines were they not? A. —Yes, sir. Mr. Bodwell:—That question was not asked in examination in chief and I presume I have a right to cross-examine about it. Mr. Warren:—Yes, I stated that. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—How do you know that none of the others paid a fine? A.—I know by what they told me and and I know by when they were brought before the Judge and the fines remitted. Q.—The fines were remitted? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When did that happen? A.—It happened in 1886 when we were discharged. Q.—You remember that distinctly do you? A.—I remember it. Some of them wanted to go away on the steamer. Q.—They were brought in open Court? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Before the Juelge? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the fines were remitted? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Who was there at that time and what fines were remitted? A.—Well the captains of the schooners and the mates, that is Capt. Monroe and the captain of the Thornton, I forget his name. Q.—And the mate of the "Thornton?" A.—The mate of the "Thornton. Q.—And the captain of the "Onward?" A.—The captain of the 'Onward." Q.—And the mate of the "Onward?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the mate of the "Carolena?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—All these were present at one time? , A.—No, slj^'.X 50 believe the mate offflie "Onward" was discharged first. He was discharged some four or five days before. Q.—Were you there when the mate of the "Onward" was discharged? A.—I was there, yes. Q.—Were you in court when the mate of the "Thornton" was discharged and his fine remitted in open court? A.—I was. Q.—What was the name of the mate of the "Thornton"? A.—I cannot recollect his name. Q.—Was it Harry Norman? A.—I do not know, I cannot say. Q-—Would you know he was the mate of the "Thornton"? A.—Yes, I know the mate of the "Thornton" was there. Q.—Did you say how long after the sentence under which you were imprisoned this was? Mr. Dickinson:—He was not imprisoned. Mr. Bodwell:—The record says he was imprisoned and I am going bv that. The witness sentence? 522 (C. E. Raynor—Re-cross.) Do vou ask me how long it was after the Mr. Bodwell:—Yes. The witness:—I believe it was about 15 days. This closed the examination of the witness. 10 Mr. Dickinson:—I desire to call the attention of the Commissioners to page 62 of the final print of the report of this case where there is given an extract from one of the documents—printed I think in the British case—of what purports to be the Revised Statutes of the United States. 1 have examined these sections that are printed, and I find some of the statutes are obsolete. They are not a correct presentation of the United States law, as for instance: The judiciary of Alaska or the territorial government had not been organized at the time, no courts had been established. Another material 20 change is that the intention of the provisions for the protection of the seal fisheries had been legislatively extended; the intention had been declared by the Congress of the United states to apply to all the waters of the Behring Sea in effect. What I rose more particularly for was to call the attention of the court to the publication of the statutes in the record as part of the evidence, and to suggest that the Commissioners permit us on both sides, when it becomes material to show the law on either side, to refer to the authoritative publications of both countries. Of course, if we 30 3 were coming into a British court and the statutes of the United States became material, it would be necessary for us to prove the statutes, or on the other side it would be neces-, sary to prove the statutes of Great Britain or of the Dominion of Canada. But as this is an international court I assume that your Honours would take judicial notice of the statutes of either country. 40 so The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you mean you want them in your printed argument? Mr. Dickinson:—We want on both sides to be able to refer to the statutes without proving them in the case. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—When you make your printed arguments you want at any time to refer to the statutes of Great Britain or of the United States? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes. 3'our Honour. I would like to have that understanding. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It might be well at some stage for counsel on each side to give notice to the other of the statutes to be referred to. Perhaps you might set them out to each other. Mr. Beique:—Yes, we should know that. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Will you cite what sections of the law are likety to be relied on and in what terms the enactlnents are made? I do not mean to say that it would be necessary to call witnesses as to Go either. . .-■?. ';'•<». 5- n|3j Mr. Dickinson:—I desire to call attention to it, or otherwise it might be said that we assented, that this was the law of the United States. It was at one time. It was not put in, of course, for that purpose, but only as part of the correspondence. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand your proposition is: that we are to have it under- Mr. Peters:—That proposition we quite agree with, but if there is any special statute that counsel on the other side intend to rely Upon we think they should give us clear notice of such. We also think it would be well, unless it is lengthy, to let it go into the case. This particular document which has got into the case now, happens to be part of a letter that was written by Mr. Bayard to Sir Lionel Sackville West, and inclosed to him at that time as a statute of the United States relating to this matter, Mr. Dickinson states that some of these statutes are obsolete. Mr. Dickinson about. Mr. Peters:—Of course, when Mr. Dickinson makes that statement I assume that there has been some change in the law, but all this was put in as part of the correspondence, and referred to by Mr. Bayard as follows: "The laws of the United States in this behalf are contained in the revised statutes relating to Alaska in Sections 1956- 1971 and have been in force for upwards of 17 years; and prior to the seizures of last summer, but a single infraction is known to have occurred." Then in that particular letter the very statute which Mr. Dickinson states to have been obsolete is set out as the statute then in force. Under those circumstances, if Mr. Dickinson claims that there are any other statutes that qualify, alter, or change these statutes, so as to bring some new point to the notice of this commission, if is only proper that he should bring that to our attention. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Will 40 that be brought out before the evidence is closed or in the course of the argument? Mr. Peters:—I should think it should be fair f ■ have' ;t before the evielence is closed. I do not si® that if need go down on the notes of this Commission. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—There is a reason why the statutes should be brought to the attention of the Commissioners. It is not always easy for one to say that he understands fully the statute law of his own country, and the difficulty is iucreased when one has to deal with the statute law of another country. I. for one, should feel very diffident in coming to a conclusion with regard to the statute law of the United States, especially, unless I have an opportunity of hearing counsel discuss the matter. There might be laws that I may know nothing about, and I would not take judicial notice of them because I could not be supposed to have knowledge of them. Therefore, it woulel be advantageous, if there should be some way of bringing such statutes as are claimed to have pertinence, before the attention of the Court, at a time when we would have the advantage of hearing the observations of counsel upon them. Otherwise, I for one, would feel entirely at sea upon the matter. Mr. Dickinson:—We are at sea ourselves very larg iv as (0 the meaning of the United States statutes, 3'our Honour. I think it was Lord Mansfield who said: God forbid he should not know the Common Law, and God forbid lu* should know the statute lawof England." mjaamtd aaa asm IO 40 $24 (C E. Raynor—Recalled—Direct.) The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It is not necessary that they should be proved as the statutes and laws of foreign countries are proved in an ordinary court. Mr. Dickinson:—In this very statute that Mr. Bayard sends to Her Majesty's ambassador it appears that the judiciary of Alaska had not been organized—this very court that condemned the "Carolena.' The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—Put it in some regular form so that it can go upon the record. Mr. Peters:—Mr. Dickinson and I can talk the matter over and put it in shape. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We are agreed to leave it to counsel to settle the matter amongst themselves and to let us know in what shape it shall go upoj the record. Mr. Dickinson:—In connection with the statutes that are put in, and that correspondence, I desire to call attention by reference to volume five of the case of Great Britain, at pages 40 and 47, to show a knowledge on the part of Her Majesty's Government of the judicial construction of the laws of the United States with reference to the waters of Behring Sea in the other cases, and notably in the "Carolena" case, which is specially referred to in this correspondence. The judicial construction of the federal statutes by the Courts of Alaska, and the* United States was: "That the United States had jurisdiction over the waters of Behring Sea." Sir C. H. Tupper:—That is a report of a committee of the Privy Council of November the 27th. 1886. Mr. Dickinson:—That is' it. Sir C. H. Tupper:—You refer to the whole of that report. Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, to the report of the committee of the Privy Council. SO 60 The Commissioners then took a recess. Mr. Dickinson:—I desire to recall, if the Commissioners please, Captain Raynor, with reference to a queation which has been omitted as to his catch in the Behring Sea. Capt. Rayner:—A witness already examined on the part of the United States, was recalled. Examined by Mr. Warren • Q.—Capt. Raynor, without detailing the vessels or the particular seasons, just tell the Commissioners how many years you have hunted in Behring Sea? A.—Three years in Behring Sea. Q.—I believe that you stated that you were first there in the year 1880? A.—It was in 1881, I believe I said \ok- terday that it was 1880 but ii should be in 1881. Q.—What years were you in there; did you mean three years outside of 1881, or was 1881 included? A.—I mean three years hunting in there exclusively for seals; that was 1886. Q.—What part of the Sea did you hunt in in these various years? A.—No particular part;, any where I found seals. Q.—Did you go sometimes to the westward of the Pribyloff Islands? A.—Yes, some times to the westward and some times to the eastwarel. (C. E. Raynor—Recalled—Direct.) Q.—To the north? A.—No, the northeast end not the north exactly. Q.—And to the south? A.—Yes. Q.—From your experience in the Sea will you state whether you did find, in 1887-1888, that the seals were to be found in the same place that you had found them in 1886? A.— No, sir; they were not; I never found successive years that I io found seals in the same place. Q.—In looking for seals out there you have to take your vessel around various parts of the sea to come across a bunch of seals? A.—Y'es. Q.—You do not hunt seals in herds, do you? They are found in small bunches are they not? A.—Mostly; I found them by two or three at a time. Q.—There is no such thing as running across thousands of seals and being able to kill any number of them in a short time? A.—No, sir, I never found it so. 20 Q.—Seals are hunted individually more than collectively, are they not? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And they are found in bunches of two and three and of bunches of ten and eleven together? A.—Sometimes you see them in large bunches. Q.—But they are generally awake and you cannot get to them. They have what we call lookouts and are on the guard when in herds. Q.—When seals are awake it is harder to approach them and of course harder to kill them? A.—Yes, sir. 30 Q.—The majority of seals are shot when they are asleep, are they? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, to enter into the matter of taking seals, what are the conditions which would modify the number which can be killed? A.—^'<*]1. the state of the weather. If it is raining or strong winds or anything of that kind, the seals do not sleep very well- And in a strong breeze of wind you cannot get on to them. Q.—Do they scent you? A.—If you get to the windward of a seal they scent you at a long distance. 40 Q.—For that reason it is better to approach the seals from the lee side? A.—Y'es, from the leeward when the wind is blowing from the seal to the hunter. Q.—What other condition modifies the result when seal hunting? A.—Well, a great deal depends on how the hunter decides to get at the seal. Q.—Does the experience of a master have anything to do with it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Explain to the Commissioners why that enters into the modification of the result in seal catching? A.—Well, 5° the master has to do with looking the seals up, and after he sees them, keeping his vessel in position and sending the boats in a certain direction and so on. Q.—Has the matter of handing a crew and selecting a crew anything to do with it? A.—Yes, sir, it has a great deal to do with it whether you get a good crew or a bad crew. Q.—Captain Ogilvie had never been in the sea before as far as you know? A.—As far as I know he had never been in the Behring Sea before. Q.—Sealing? A.—Nor never did any sealing there as far 60 as I know. Q.—The question as to whether or not there are several vessels in a good locality, has that anything to do with the result? A.—Yes, sir, of course, the more boats there are around either with shooting or vrith spears, it wakes the seals and keeps them moving and \ou would not get as many as if you were alone. Q.—A seal can travel faster than a man could row in a boat or that a canoe could paddle? A.—Y'es, sir. 10 C. E. Rayn'br—Recalled—Direct—Cross.) Q.—Are even fster than an ordinary vessel with an ordinary wind could travel after them? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And the3r could keep up that rapidity of movement for such a long time as to escape their pursuers, could the3r not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have 3'ou observed what the seals feed upon? A.— Yes, sir, they feed most upon fish and squids and shrimps in different localities. Q.—These fish travel from one part of the sea to the other in the same season? A.—No, sir, the fish shifts and also the seals shift with them. Q.-^-That is what I asked you, I asked if the3' travel after the fish? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—From 3'our experience of 3'our three years • in the Behring Sea do 3'ou think that you would be able to estimate the number of skins that a vessel would take in the year 1887 going into Behring Sea? 20 Mr. Bodwell:—That question, was, I think, ruled out before. I think I put a similar queston to one of our witnesses and after some consideration it was ruled out. Mr. Warren:—I asked this question: From the experience of your three years in Behring Sea, do 3'ou think 3'ou would be able to estimate the number of skins that a vessel would take in the year 1887 going into the Behring Sea, and carrying a fair number of boats? A.—No, sir, I do not. 3° Cross-examination bv Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Y'ou were out in the Behring Sea in 1886 for the first time? A.—For the first time sealing, that is for the first time sealing direct. Q.—It was the first time 3'ou went into the Behring Sea wasn't it ? A.—No, sir. Q.—The first time 3'ou went into Behring Sea sealing? A. —I went in there sealing before, but not sealing altogether. I had been in, sealing and otter hunting before. Q.—When? A.—In 1881, 1882 and 1883. 4° Q.—In what schooner'.' A.—In the "Otter." Q.—You went there sealing? A.—Yes,' sir, otter hunting and seals. Q.—Did 3'ou get nian3' seals? A.—No, sir, we did not. Q.—Your principal business was otter hunting? A.—Yes, sir, for a part of the time. Q.—You only took seals because you happened to run across them? A.—No, sir, we hunted seals for about six weeks, and made it a business. Q.—Were you captain of the vessel? A.—No, sir, I was sailing master. Captain Littlejohn was the captain. Q.—Where did 3'ou go in 1886, what part of the sea? A. —Well, I was in various places. Q.—Where did 3rou go first? A.—The first time I went to Unimak Pass, and northeast to the St. Paul Islands. Q.—How far? A.—I was about twent3'-four miles off the islands. Q.—Had you been there for seals before? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Did 3'ou find them? A.—Yes, sir, I did. 60 Q-—Did 3rou find them in 1886? A.—Very few. Q.—Did 3'ou find seal where 3'ou found them before? A. —Some. Q.—That was the first position, and now where was your second position? A.—Well, I went all over the ground between the Prib3'loff and Aleutian Islands. ii.—Within what distance east and west, within what degrees of longitude? A.—I really cannot te*ll the degrees of longitude. Q.—Did you keep a log? A.—No, sir, I did not keep a log. Q.—You were master of the vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Can you give us an idea, suppose you drew a straight line down from the Pribyloff Islands to the Aleutian Islands I understand you to say that your first position was longitude 175 and latitude 57? A.—Yes, near to Bogosloff. Q.—Then you went south, did you ? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you go any further east than 171? A.—No, sir, 1 do not think I did. Q— But you went south below 54 did you? A.—No. Q.—Above 54? A.—Y'es, above 54. Q-—Then how far west did you go, did you go to 165? A. —I went as far as Bogosloff. Q.—Here is Bogosloff, latitude 168, that is as far west as you went? A.—Yes. Q-—Between these points was where vou hunted in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you find the way over. Q.—Did you make much of a catch? any big catch. Q.—When were vou seized? A.—I on the 28th of July. Q.—You know, captain, from your few seals are taken as a rule before that date in Behring Sea? A.—Well, I have not found it so in my own experience. Q.—You have been there twice since that date? A.— Y'es, sir. ' Q.—In what 3'ears? A.—In 1887 and 1888. Q.—How many seals did you get before the 28th of July in 1887? A—I would not be able to tell you. Q.—I am not asking you exactly. I do not want to bind 3'ou to one seal, or within 20 or even 50. A.—Well, I do not know as I can say within a hundred or two, I believe I caught somewhere between 800 and 900. Q_Will you swear you causht 800 before the 28th of July? A.—I wemld not swear to the exact number. Q.—Will you swear you caught in the neighborhood of 800 before the 28th of July? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—With how many boats? A.—Six boats. Q.—How many did you get altogether in the season? .V. —I do not remember exactly. Q.—Y'ou were seized in 1887, were you? A.—Yes, sir, I was seized. Mr. Warren: 1887. -He was seized on the 25th of August By Mr. Bodwell: Q.—But before the 28th of July you had taken 800 seals? A.—I had taken somewhere about that. Q.—Where did you get them? A.—I caught them very much on the same ground all around out there. Q.—Just about the same ground as vou caught them in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—How many did you get between the 28th of July and 6o the 25th of August when you were seized? A.—I believe I hal altogether, when I was seized, something over 1,600, but I am not positive how many it was. Q.—In what locality did you get that additional number of seals in the month of August? A.—Well, I got them in about the same ground. Q.—You caught them about the same ground? A.—Yes. Q.—Y'ou kept working around in about the same ground? A.—Yes, sir. 10 20 523 (GS; E. Raynor—Recalled—Cross.) Q.—Now, you were out in 1888, were you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On what ship were you? A.—On the "Alger." Q.—And you had how many boats? A.—I had six boats. Q.—What time did you go into the Sea that year? A.— I did not go into the Sea in 1888. Q.—You were not in the Sea in 1888? A.—No, sir, i was in the Sea in 1.889. Q.—Tell me the first day you lowered your boats in the.' year 1887? A.—I cannot tell. Q.—Was it not about the middle of the month of July? A. I think it was somewhere about the 6th or 7th of July. Q.—Do you remember whether or not you got many seals at the beginning of the lowering in July? A.—No, sir, I think they were very scarce. I do not know, but 1 got very few. Q.—You got very few at the start and towards the end of July you began to get a greater number of seals and by the 28th of July you got 800? A.—Somewhere about that. Q.—What other year were you in the Sea? A.—I was in the Sea in 1889. Q.—On what ship? A.—On the "James Hamilton Lewis." Q.—How many boats did you have? A.—I had six boats. Q.—What time did you begin sealing? A.—Somewhere along the first of July, I cannot say exactly. Q.—We will try and get it out in this way. About when did you begin to get them in numbers? A.—Well, I never got any great number in the "Hamilton Lewis," as a matter 30 of fact I was only there a little while before I was ordered out and I came home home. Q.—When were you ordered out, can you tell? A.—I cannot say exactly, but somewhere about the 15th or 20th of July. Q.—Where were you when you were ordered out? A.—I was somewhere about this position. Q.—That would be 170 west longitude and 55 north latitude? A.—Some where about that. Q.—Did you find seal there? A.—No, sir. Q.—You were asked for your position and you have given it. Were you not up to the east of the islands? A.—I was looking for seals. Q.—Were you not making a north and easterly point from that point? A.—No, sir, I was laying to, looking for seals there. Q.—How long had you been laying to? A.—I think I had been there three days. The weather was foggy. Q.—You expected that the seals would leave the islands and start south somewhere about the 10th of July? A.—No, 5° sir, I did not expect anything of the kind. ■ Q.—What were you in that position for? A.—I was there to look for seals because that is the sealing ground all over there. Q.—Of course, and you went where you knew the sealing ground would be? A.—Why, certainly. Q.—So that the sealing ground is confined to certain limits? A.—Yes, but them "limits is anywheres from the northeast of the islands up to the northwest of the islands, and to the southward down towards the Pribyloff. Q.—The Aleutian Islands, you mean? A.—Yes. Q.—How far is it from the Aleutian Islands to the first point of St. George's Island in a straight line? A.—I could not tell without I had the instrument and worked it out. Q.—You have been there three or four years, and surely you can tell about the distances? I do not ask you as to a mile or twenty miles, for that matter? A.—I think the distance is somewhere about three hundred miles. 40 60 10 (C. E. Raynor—Recalled, Q.—From the Aleutian Islands to the first point of St. George's Island? A.—I think somewhere about that. Q.—Don't you know it is only 170 miles? A.—I do not. Q.—Would you be surprised to be told that? A.—I would not be surprised. Q.—Did you ever work it out on your chart? A.—I cannot say that I ever did measure the distance. ' Q.—Captain, you do not want to give us the impression, you being a seafaring, man and the master of a vessel, that you cannot come any closer to the distance than that in a place where you have been sealing for three years? A.-r- I mean that I do not know the distance from the Aleutian Islands to St. George's Island, and that I have stated. Q.—You cannot tell us within a hundred miles? A.—I could not state without measuring. Q.— Did you ever go to Behring Sea in any year looking for seals that you did not find them? A.—Do you mean if 20 I ever went looking for them any one day that I did not find t'.eui" Q.—That is not the question that I asked you, and I do not think that you can understand it that way. I ask you if 3'cu went to Behring Sea any year that you did not find tliem? A.—No, sir, I always found some seals. Q.—The "Alger" was the smallest catch you made? .— No, sir, I think it was the largest catch I ever made in Behring Sea. 30 Re-direct examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—At that time when you were seized it was after the season was over.' A.—Yes, sir Q.—And you had made ready to go before the seizure? A. ■t—Yes, sir, I had made ready to go out of the Sea the day before. The examination of the witness closed. 40 Edward P. Miner was called as a witness on behalf pf the United States and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Dickinson. Q.—Where do you live, Captain Miner? A.—In Seattle, Washington. Q.—Where were you born? A.—Tn Santa Barbara, Cali- 50 fornia. Q.—You are a native Californian? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—When were you born? A.—In 1854." Q.—You have followed the sea since you came-to man's estate? A.—Since 1875. Q.—Out of what ports? Out of the ports of San Francisco, Yokohama, Victoria and Seattle. Q.—In what capacity did you sail in 1875? A.—As a hunter on board an otter schooner on the Californian coast. Q.—And in 1876? A,—1876 I omitted; I did not go to sea 60 in 1876. Q.—Did you go to sea the next year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Is there any year that you omitted from that time down to 1895? A.—No, sir. Q.—When did you go as master for the first time? A.—In 1885. Q.—In what? A.—In the British schooner "Penelope," registered at Shanghai. Q.—And built in Japan? A.—Yes, built in Y'okohama. 34 5 30 K 20 (E. P. Miner—Direct.) Q— And during all these years, from 1875, with the excep tion of 1876, down to 1895 where have you hunted? A.—On the coast of California, otter hunting until 1880, and I then came north and went to the Kurile Islands. q.—Where are they? A.—On the northern part of Japan, belonging to the Japanese Empire, and reaching from Kam- atchato to the Islands of Yedo. Q.—And where else? A.—Afterwards I went to San 10 Francisco, and the next voyage I was up the coast sealing in the Behring Sea, through to the Aleutian coast, down to Oktch Sea, and then to Yokohama. Q.—What year was that? A.—That was in 1881. Q.—That was purely as a sealing voyage? A.—Sealing and hunting. Q.—What were you sailing in that year? A.—The "Anas- - tasia Cashman." Q.—In 1881 did you go sealing? A.—Yes, sir, I went sealing and otter hunting to Kurile islands. Q.—Did you enter Behring Sea going or coming? A.— Not until 1886. Q.—When did you enter the Behring Sea? A.—I brought the "Penelope" from Yokohama to Victoria at the end of the otter hunting voyage and came through the Behring Sea late . in the season. Q.—In 1886? A.—Y'es. sir, the weather did not permit of any hunting and we came right on. Q.—What class of vessels were you accustomed to from 1875; were they merchantmen or hunters and fishers? A.— 3 I have never been on a merchantman, but always on fishing and hunting vessels. Q.—Always the same class of vessels as went into Behring Sea? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Y'ou have been familiar with them all your life? A. —Yes, since 1875. Q.—Do you know whether in 1886 or in 1887 there were in the city of San Francisco, or about the city, shipyards of large dimensions? A.—Y'es, sir, I know several builders there. ^ Q.—Were these yards adapted to the building and outfitting pf these sealers and hunters? A.—There was none that I know of exclusively, but there was C. G. White and Matthew Turner and Ben Dixon, who all built vessels of that class. Q.—They built these vessels and were fully equipped to turn them out? A.—Yes. sir, fully equipped and they turned out a great many. Q.—Do you know of any other ship yards on the Pacific. 50 Coast where this class of vessels were turned out in 1886 and 1887? A.—No. I do not. Q.—Y'ou knew the fleet in these years pretty well? A.— Y'es, sir. Q.—And the class of vessels? A.—I knew every one that was in the business. Q.—Y'ou knew them by sight when you saw them at sea or in port; you were then intimately acquainted with the business? A.—Yes, sir. Go Q'—Now, of the sealing vessels engaged in the business in Behring Sea and on the Pacific Coast and going to Japan, will you please state where the majority came from and where built? A.—In the present day? Q.—No, I am referring to 1886 and 1887? A.—Why, in San Francisco. Q.—That was the great output for this class of ships? A. —Y'es, sir. A.—They were about 80 There was not much dif- 40 SO (E. P. Minei Q.—And the marked for ships on the Pacific Coast was largely fixed by the price at San Francisco? A.—Y'es, sir. Q— You were here in the "Penelope" in 1886? A.—In the fall of 1886. Q.—They had no ship yards in Victoria for the building of this class of ships? A.—There were two ways for hauling up vessels here. 10 Q.—But not ship yards? A.—I saw none. Q.—Did you have-any at Seattle? A.—We had none at Seattle. Q.—Nor any where else on the Pacific Coast between Victoria and San Francisco? A.—There was Hall Brothers at Port Blakeley, but they built mostly lumber carrying vessels. Q.—They did not build sealers? -V.—No, sir. Q.—Otter hunting and sealing has been a great trade on the Pacific Coast since you came to man's estate? A.—Yes,' sir, it has been growing since I first joined it. 20 Q.—Could you give me the names of what are called sealing vessels now that were on this coast in the years 1886 and 1887? A.—It would take me quite a while to think of all. Q.—I understand that, but I want you to give us your best memory and then I will see if f can refresh it? A.—I cannot remember just the years the different vessels came out. There were two vessels the "C. G. White" and the "C. H. White," of San Francisco. Q.—What about their tonnage? tons each, if I remember rightly. 30 ference between them. Q.—What was their business? built for a pilot boat and afterwards went otter hunting and sealing, and the "C. H. White" was built expressely for otter hunting and sealii Q.—Were they in the water and out from the stocks in 1886? A.—I cannot say as to whether they were out in 1886. The "C. G. White was built at that time, but whether the "C. H. White" was built before 1887 I cannot say. It was surely 1888 if not 1887. Q.—Can you state any others that you knew of, fixing the time by your experience here in 1886, up to that time? A. —There was the schooner "Annie," the "San Diego," the ter," the "Theresa," and the "Alexander" and the Jose." Q.—Do you remember the "City of San Diego" then? —Yes, sir. Q.—And the "Sierra?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—She was of the same period? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you name the "Vanderbilt?" A.—I knew her but did not name her. Q.—And the "Lillie L?" A.—Yes. Q.—And the "Pearl?" A.—I did not remember her. Q.—And the "Sylvia Handy?" A.—I knew her well; yes, sir. I recall the "Pearl" now. I do remember the "Pearl" as belonging to the Alaska Commercial Company. Q.—She was a sealer and built in San Francisco? A.— Yes, by Turner. Q.—The "Angel Dolly?" A.—Yes, sir. 60 Q.—The "Laura," do you remember her? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—She was a small vessel, of about how many tons? A. About twenty tons. Q.—Do you remember the "Golden Fleece?" A.—No, sir; I do not. Q.—Do you remember the "Rose Sparks? Sparks" I remember we Q.—At that period? A.—Yes, sir "Ot- 'San 10 20 40 Wilson?" A.— A.—Yes, sir. 60 (E. P. Miner—Direct.) Q.—Do you remember the "Charles J. No, sir, I don't remember her. Q.—Do you remember the "Allie I. Alger?" sir. Q.—Was she a San Francisco vessel? A.—She was built in Seattle. Q.—Do you remember the "Helen Blum?" A.—The "Helen Blum" I know well. Q.—Do you remember the "Henrietta," a schooner of about 40 tons? A.—I never saw her, but I heard a great deal of her. Q.—You name only the ships you knew in the seas? A.— Yes, sir, those that I had seen and was familiar with. Q.—Now, during this period down to the close of 1886, did you know all the fleet in these waters? A.—Yes, I think so. Q.—Amongst these sealers and hunters, did you know of any ships from the Atlantic coast, from Nova Scotia or Massachusetts? A.—I remember when the first one came round from the Atlantic Coast. Q.—What was she? A.—The nearest I could tell was the "Pathfinder," coming around with Capt. O'Leary. Q.—In what year? A.—I think she came first in here and arrived here the same year as I did. Q.—In 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—Were there any others that you knew in the whole fleet up to the close of 1886? A.—No, sir. Q.—Was she also known by another name? A.—She is known now by the name of the "Pioneer," I believe. Q.—Now, what proportion of the ships engaged in sealing on the Pacific Coast have as their port of origin San Francisco? A.—At that time? Q.—Up to the close of 1886? A.—I think fully two-thirds. Q.—Where did the other one-third come from? A.—From Victoria, mostly; they had been bought at different places and concentrated at Victoria, Q.—What do you mean by saying that they came from other.places and concentrated at Victoria? They would come up, for instance, from San Francisco and re-register here? A.—Y'es, sir, they were built on the California coast. Q.—I speak of the proportion of the vessels, whether registered at another port or not, in the fleet up to the close of the 3'ear 1886. In these years were most of that class of vessels originally built in San Fran.cisco? A.—In San Francisco and vicinity; there would be more than two-thirds. Q.—Would you put it at nine-tenths? Make your own proportion? A.—I will put it at two-thirds and be on the safe side. Q.—Now, you were engaged in this business and in analogous business away back in 1875 and in 1886 and up to 1895. in this business of sealing and fishing for seals, when there was a demand for a vessel, will you please state what. Io the business, was known as the port at which the valuation of these vessels was to be fixed. A.—San Fracisco was understood. Q.—And the value was fixed at San Francisco because of the number of ship-yards there and the unequalled facilities for building the ships? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And because of that the value was fixed at San Francisco? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, you have had to do with the outfitting of schooners? A.—Yes, since I have been master. Q.—Since what date? A.—Since 1885. Q.—Was there any difference in the form of the outfit for the sealing business in 1886, or would the outfit be sim- 10 20 30 4o 50 60 ilar for other vessels prior to 1886? A.—We carriee the same quality of goods and the same quantity. Q.—When they went out hunting walruses, did they take guns and ammunition? A.—Only rifles for walruses. Q.—Did they take boats? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Similar boats to the>se used in sealing? A were larger boats, but similarly constructed. Q.—Did they take hunters? A.—Yes, a hunter for < boat. Q.—Did you ever outfit in Victoria? A.—Y'es, in 1887 Q.—What ship? A.—The "Penelope." Q.—How large a vessel? A.—She was about 71 tons.. Q.—How many men did she carry? A.—I think she ried that year twenty-one or twenty-two men. Q.—Including the captain and mate? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many boats? A.—Five boats and a stern boat. Q.—She was fully equipped with guns? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And a slop chest? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was there any difference in the and the outfitting at San Francisco? but very little difference. Q.—I mean as to the volume and not No, sir. Q.—Now, was there any difference, in your experience, as to the cost of outfitting at Victoria from the cost of outfitting at San Francisco? A.—Some articles I found cheaper in San Francisco and some I found cheaper in Victoria. Q.—Can you name that class of articles? A.—I found al these canned meats higher in. Victoria. Q.—And what did you find cheaper? A. I got potatoes emeaper here. Q.—And vegetables? A.—Y'es, several thought the fitting out here was about the other side. Q.—When you got through, you thought the fitting out here was about the same as in San Francisco? A.—Ye sir. Q.—That is it would average up? A.—Average up. Q.—Now, give us a general idea of an outfit for sealing. I refer to an outfit for a sealing cruise in these years? A.—In the way of provisions or the whole? Q.—I want you to give the outfit of the ship? A.—There was the provision bill first. Q.—How much would you provide per man? A.—My estimate has been usually about ten dollars a month for a man. Q.—Before you come to that, Capt. Miner, have you given the subject sufficient attention in your experience, so that without figuring on any special vessel, you had any data by which you could figure for yourself about what 3'ou would want? A.—Certainly, I know the cost of outfitting for every season I have been out; that is approximately. Q.—Suppose you had been called to fit out a schooner for a sealing voyage to Behring Sea in the year 1886, say, did you have knowledge from your experience so that you could make up her bills or invoices for her outfit. A.—I could, everything. Q.—From your experience in sealing, you could tell as to what she would need? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, then, will you tell us what proportion you would take of provisions? A.—My provision bill has always ru for the number of men I had, from about $1,200 to $1,700. Q.—What number of men? A.—According to the numbei I have had. I have had from 21 to 25 men. Q.—You never have had as low as 11 men. A.—No 534 i 11 io 20 40 pre> ind I (E. P. Miner—Direct.) Q.-—What was your proportion per man? A.—I always figured it in the cost of keeping the men. I never figure visions alone, but there was the fuel and other things, always figured at $10. Q.—Including coal and lights and everything to make the men comfortable? A.—Yes, everything for the expense .of the voyage in the way of living was about $10 to each man. Q.—And you state $1,200 to $1,700 for from 20 to 24 men, would you please tell us for how long a voyage? A.—I usually fitted out for nine months. Q.—And suppose you were going for four or five months? A.—I would fit out accordingly. I always had provisions to return. I never stayed long enough to use them. I never stayed the full nine months out. Q.—What would you figure the slop chest per man? A.— I never figure the slop chest in that way. I figure that as advances. Q.—How? A.—Because that is sold to the men, and it comes back as wages paid and there is always some profit. Q.—What would you figure it at in the outfit? A.—Between three and four hundered dollars for an extra good slop chest. Q.—For how many men? A.—For a crew of that size, from 20 to 24 men. Q.—And what other things are included in the outfit outside of boats and oars and sails for the boats? A.—There are guns and ammunition and loading tools, and spears and various other things. Q.—If you were making up your list to fit your schooner in 1886, how would you say as to the amount of ammunition? A.—I knew about what we would use to each hunter. Q.—I want you to estimate here in this witness box as you would estimate if you were going to fit out a schooner in 1886? A.—My ammunition bill usually ran about $350. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I wish the witness to understand the form of the questiem and to answer it.exactly in that form. I do not wish to have a line of examination opened up which will extend the record to great length. By Mr. Dickinson:—Q.—I ask you, ting out a seliooner in 1886? A.—I eight 25-pound kegs of powder. Q.—For how man hunters? A.—For six hunters, and 1 would take about 28 sacks of buckshot and about 10,000 primers. Q.—What are primers? A.—Primers are the fulminate 5° that explodes the powder. Q.—Would you have taken this in 1886? A.—About that. Q-—How much did the shot cost per bag? A.—I cannot say what it cost in those days. Q.—And the powder? A.—The powder was $7 or $7.50 a keg. Q.—Is it higher or lower now?A.—Much lower now. suppose you were fit- should take seven .or than it 60 that you are tting out here? dealing with A.—No, sir, Q.—Is shot higher or lower? A.—Shot is low was. Q.—You understand perfectly the values in Victoria in 1886, fi in 1887 I spoke of. Q.—Was there any difference and 1887? A.—Not that I know of, I do not think there was. When I stated the price of powder I meant the American price and there is the duty to be added to that.here. Q.—When you spoke of the average outfit being about equal to San Francisco and finding some things cheaper in in the outfit between 1886 IO 20 30 50 60 (E. P Miner—Direct.) dearer, you spc Victoria and some thin ing then? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—There was a duty upon ammunition sir, there was a duty upon ammunition and ; guns and such outfitting as that. Q.—And you had to have American guns and American powder? A.—It was much better than any other we could get. Q.—They had guns and powder here, had they not? A.— Yes. Q.—And American guns and American powder, they had them here? A.—I did not see any American guns here. Q.—If they fitted out with American guns they would have to pay a duty; do you remember what duty that was? The eluty, I think, was 20 per cent, on guns. Q.—And on ammunition? A.—I think it was pound on powder, if I remember right. Q.—-Now, what else besides the guns, the slop chest ammunition and provisions? A.—There is nothing else would go to a sealing outfit. Q.—Do you think of any sundries of any kind or description that should be added to a vessel getting ready for sealing? A.—One sundry that should be added to a sealing outfit would be the signal gun to be used in fog. Q.—How large a gun? A.—A gun of about two inch bore suitable to fire about a quarter of a pound of powder at a charge; I should say if made of brass, it would cost about $50 or $55. Q.—Is there any oil for the lamps necessary to be furnished? A.—I always considered that in the pre)vision bill, it was ordered with the provisions. Q.—You had included that in the provision bill? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, about extra sails. What have you to say as to that? A.—That goes with the vessel, and not with the sealing outfit. Q.—Now, if you estimating the value of a sealing vesst 40 have you had anything to do with the price in buying a sealing vessel yourself? A.—I have dickered with other vessels, I never bought one myself but I have had an interest in one. I never bought one outside, but I have bargained for vessels. Q.—For others? A.—For myself. Q.—You knew something as to how to keep posted on the cost and value of vessels? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—From what time? A.—From about 1888, after I went to San Francisco. I thought then of getting a small vessel for myself to go north otter hunting, and I spoke then to Mr. Turner. Q.—Are you familiar with the cost and value of vessels of the character' used in sealing? A.—I think I am. Q.—So that when you see a vessel at sea or in port and go upon her you can form an idea as to' her Value in the market? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—What she should sell for? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Or what one should pay for her? A.—I think so. Q.—You have not been in any other business all your life but this? A.—Not until 1895. Q.—Then what did you do? A.—I have a little restaurant. Q— Where? A.—Seattle. Q.—Now, in estimating the value of a ship, if you buy her to seal, what goes with her? A.—Her sails, anchors, chains, side lights, cooking utensils, range,, and.all the appurtenances ready for sea. If vou bargain for a new vessel fitted for sea that goes with her. mia 10 20 30 40 50 60 536 (E. P. Miner—Direct.) Q.—All read37 for sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Ready with her sealing equipment and ready for sea? A.—Yes, sir, with sealing equipment. Q.—Would an extra sail be part of the ship or part of the supplies? A.—An extra sail would be accounted to the vessel; a vessel is not fitted for sea without some spare sails. Insurance men woulel not take the risk without an extra sail. Q.—What about ropes and hawsers? A.—They are the , same, sir. Q.—And the ship chandlery? A.—A new vessel fitted for sea needs but very little; everything is new and supposed to last. Q.—That is when she was a new vessel, but I am speaking of an ordinary vessel that may be 20 or 10 or 15 years old. A.—That depends on what condition she was kept in, .she might want very much ship chandlery and she might want very little if she was kept in good order. I was going to say that would be a consideration in the price of the vessel as to how well she was fitted. Q.—Suppose before sending her out on a sealing voyage she was repaired, and new planks put in her and the old planks taken out, and she was painted and new locks put on her cabin and lockers, when equipping hery in making her ready for sea, before her sealing outfit was put upon her; would you take this into consideration in addition to her estimated value? A.—No, sir, I should put that to the cost of the vessel. Q.—That is if you call a ship worth $3,000 on the 1st of •December, 1896, and in the meantime, between the 1st of December, 1896, and the 1st of January, 1897, she was put in thorough repair, you would not say she was worth $3,000 on the 1st of December, and $3,000 on the 1st of January, with the repairs added, would you? A.—No, sir, that would be the cost of the repairs. - Q.—Do you know an3"thing about the original cost of any ships of your own; 1 mean sealing vessels of a similar size and type? A.—I know of similar vessels having been built in California about that time. The estimated cost of vessels up to that time of about 40 tons was $100 register tonnage. I remember that because I thought it very strange that they built vessels by registered tonnage. Q.—That was in 1886? A.—No, that was in 1888. Q.—I want to get at the price in 1886? A.—I am not familiar with any vessels sold in that time. Q.—Do you know anything about the price of the "Unger?" A.—I know the cost of her; the builder told me. Q.—When was she built? A.—She was built somewhere in the early eighties. Q.—Now, we are getting back. You knew her in 1886' —Yes, sir. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—About 25 tons. Q.—How long was she built before 1886? A.—She was built in the first of the eighties, 1881 or 1882. I know-1 saw her north at the latter end of the eighties, before she lost. Q.—Did you know the ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Been on board her? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was the name of the builder of that ship? Matthew Turner. Q.—What was her cost? A.—She cost $2,500. Q.—Do you know anything about the "Margie"? A.- was exactly like the "Unger," they were sister ships. Q.—And cost the same? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And built about the same time? A.—Yes, sir. was A.- -Sh 10 20 30 40 6o (E. P. Miner—Direct.) Q.—Were these ships built at San Francisco built of Douglas fir or of Oregon pine? A.—They were built at San Francisco and they were built of Oregon pine or Douglas fir. Q.—Is there any difference between Oregon pine and Douglas fir? A. -Not that I know of. Q.—And these were built of that materialt A.—Yes. Q.—Did you know the "Carolena"? A.—I saw her on the beach; I never saw her afloat. Q.—What sort of a boat was she, as to being well built, was she old or new style? A.—It was a very old style of vessel, that is, in model. Q.—Her model was very old style? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did that fact impair her market value at all? A.—It surely would. Q.--What is the difference between the old style and the new style? A.—They are modeled to be better sailers and better sea boats in the new model. Q.—Was she deficient in those respects in her model? A. —I should say so. Q.—Was she in accordance with the standard of ships of her size and tonnage? A.—She was defective as to a sailer; I should never pick her out as being a sailer. Q.—The question is, whether she was up to the expected standard of 1886 of vessels of her size and class in model and in sailing qualities? A.—I should not have considered her so. Q.—Would that impair her market value? Would there be a difference between her, even if she was in fine seaworthy condition and sound timber, as compared to a ship of modern build? A.—It would be to anyone who had an eye for such things. Q.—That means something to a person buying her? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—To a man engaged in tim SM^Mi means everything. - Q.—They want the best model —Yes, sir. Q.—You saw that ship in 1887, I see her until 1889. Q.—Her model has not changed up anv? A.—No, sir, she was not ging was down. Q.—And assuming that she was in a seaworthy condition with entirely sound timbers in 1886, what would be the difference in value between that ship and a new ship Of a modern construction and build? A.—I should say fully 50 per cent. Q.—Do you take that valuation at San Francisco, Victoria or Seattle? A.—San Francisco would be the only place I could base my calculation on. Q.—Do you take her valuation from the headquarters of the market for such ships? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, we will add to that condition: a ship of the old model that you saw, and we will add to the description I have given to you, that she was built in 1861, that she was on the stakes here in 1884, and had been lengthened eight feet by taking out her center and building in a section of about eight feet in length, so that she was of the same model when you saw her, as she would be after the eight feet had been added in the centre; but suppose that the ship was built in 1861, and then rebuSf in 1884, what would you say as to her valuation as compared with a new ship? A.—The valuation would depend a great deal on what condition she had been kept in. Q.—But suppose she was built in 1861 and had been cut in two and a section of eight feet introduced in her center, and '1 the business? A.—Yes, sir, it and the fastest sailers? A. suppose? A.—I did hot and she was not broken broken up, only her rig: »i id i 35 MM^aaa [,8 5j° 1 I H (E. P. Miner—Direct.) suppose her to be sound? A.—I would base the valuatiem of her upon the business she was going to enter, and how useful she would be for that business more than an3*thing else. Q.—But in the market, what was she worth in the market? A.—In the market I think, she would be probably useless, unless there was some special business to put her into that IO she could accomplish. Q.—What you mean to say is, that her value would depend upon the special circumstance of some one wanting her for a spedal business? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And what would you say as to her value in the market generally? A.—In the market generally a vessel that had been built up so much on and of that age, would be, I think, comparatively useless. There could be no market value set on her. Q.—They would very likely have to make a special sale? 20 A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now you were sealing in Behring Sea in 1887? A.— In 1887 I sealed in the Behring Sea. Q.—What did you go into the Behring Sea in 1887? A.— In the "Penelope." Q.—You carried boats? A.—Yes, I carried six boats, five boats and the stem boat which I hunted in myself. Q.—And you had been in the sea, I think, every year since 1881? A.—Not sir, since 1881. I remained on the Japanese coast until 1886. 30 Q.—Did I not understand you to say that you passed through the sea in 1886? A.—But I never came further east than Copper Islands. Q.—But in the years on a Japanese coast 3'ou were seal hunting? A.—Seal hunting and otter hunting. Q.—And from 1886 until 1895 you have sealed every year in the Behring Sea? A.—Not every year; I have been warned out. Q.—You have sealed whenever you had a chance? A.— Yes, sir. 40 Q.—What years did you not seal? A.—I did not seal in 1888 and I did not seal in 1892 and 1893. I would not be positive about 1892. Q.—Now, when you went into the sea in the "Penelope," did you come upon large number of seals at times? A.—You mean in sight from the vessel? Q.—Yes? A.—I suppose I have seen bunches of 20 or 25 seals. Q.—And in your boats? A.—I have seen the same bunches laying around. We do not estimate the number of' seals 5° around by one bunch. We used to run across them. Q.—One bunch would indicate that there were other bunches near? A.—Yes, sir, on the feeding ground of seals. Q.—Do you find it to occur as an ordinary or exceptional occurrence, that when there are abundant seals on the grounds you sometimes cannot get them? A.—I have seen that so. I have seen it more difficult to get them when there was an abundance of seals than when they were more scattered. • Q.—You could kill in a segregated bunch easier than you 6° could in a large bunch? A.—Yes, sir. Q,_What is the'difficulty about that? A.—They do not sleep when they are together. Q.—They are disposed to play? A.—Yes, siri Q.—And when awake is it less easy to get them? A.—It is very much more difficult to get them. Q.—Is there any large proportion of seals lost after being shot when they are awake? A.—Yes, sir, of awake seals a large proportion are lost? 10 20 So 60 (E I'. Miner—Direct.) Q.—Why is that? A.—Because they are standing up in the water and shot from the front looking at you. They fall on their back then, and I understand that the air comes out of their body and they sink tail first. Q.—And go out of sight and are lost? A.—Y'es. Q.—They don't come up again? A.—I never knew of one to come up; a dead seal will sink like a stone. Q.—You never knew of one to come up? A.—I- always understood it that way. When the wind is out of them they go down like a stone, but if they are shot from the back they float quite a while. Q.—And they are shot from the back when asleep? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—When you approach them as they are awake they usually are fronting you? A.—Y'es, because most of the time if they know you are about they try to look at you. Q.—Do the seals scent a man? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—At what distance? A.—I think at an extraordinary distance. Q.—Beyond the sight of the vessel? A.—Oh, no, sir, but I should think at least 300 or 400 yards. Q.—Is there any special method adopted because of this in approaching a seal? A.—We always approach from the leeward. That is, if we are to the windward of the seal we are careful not to pass her that way. Q.—Now, Captain Miner, out of a body of seals awake, what proportion of them that are killed are lost? A.—It de- 30 pends a great deal on the man who shoots them. Q.—Do you shoot them at some distance when they are awake.? A.—If you shoot them at a long elistance, I think fully half would be lost. Q*.—Fully half? A.—Yes, sir, that is when we kill at a Jong distance. Q.—You. yourself, I think, are a pretty crack shot? A.—, Yes, I have always shot some seals. Q.—Well,-it is not immodest for you to say, if you have the reputation of being a first-class shot, have you? A.— 40 Yes, sir. Mr. Peters:—If we are going into the question of how many seals are lost by sinking after being shot, we will enter into a rather broad inquiry. I think that evidence of that kind, has been stopped by the Commissioners even on the cross-examination of our witnesses. The real question before us is: Notwithstanding all these difficulties what- Uumber of seals are caught. . . Mr.'Bodwell:—I commenced to examine a witness on this very point now objected to, and I was stopped. Mr. Peters:—I can produce witness after witness to say that what Captain Miner is stating is not the case, and that the experience of other people is different. Numbers of witnesses who have been on the stand can testify to that effect. I refer to page 294 of the printed evidence and I find that this very question was put to one of our witnesses- and ruled out. Captain O'Leary was being examined by my learned friend, Mr. Bodwell, and the following took place: "Q.—What is your experience as to the proportion of seals which are lost by hunters in sealing, I mean, what is the proportion of seals they lose compared with those.they get? "The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What have we to do with that, Mr. Bodwell? "Mr. Bodwell:—My friends have opened that question. "The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—This is your case now, not the defendant's case. ■ I. !,,'- 5 40 ! 1 10 30 (E. P. Miner—Direct.) "Mr. Bodwell:—I think I have the right to assume that when my friends open a line of straight cross-examination— "The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Did they not put that in as qualifying a general remark made that you relied upon in the report of the case of the American Government. "Mr. Bodwell:—The portion of the case that we put in, as I remember it, did not refer at all to that subject; it referred simply to the trail that the seals use in going into Behring Sea, and the number that went in there. "The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The ground on which it was put in was that it qualified. It may or may not have qualified, but that was the reason which justified its going in at the time." Then the matter dropped and the question was not allowed. On our part it does appear to me that we are entering. into a very broad inquiry if we are going into this very 20 scientific question as to whether a seal will sink whether you shoot him on the back or whether you shoot him dead, or whether you don't quite kill him. If we enter into that we will be in an endless inquiry. As I have already said, the practical question before us is: Notwithstanding all these difficulties what quantity of seals on an average could be caught. Mr. Dickinson:—From the time my learned friend introduced here a number of statements from the American case, and from the time that he put in maps and asked witnesses to point out where seals were caught, and submitted maps, showing the habitat of the seals in Behring Sea; from that time I have seen that if that testimony stood we would be compelled to meet it precisely in the way we are doing. And why? If that testimony had any purpose whatever, it was put in for the purpose of showing that the seals were there in great numbers, and could be easily killed. My learned friends read from the American case to show that the seals were there in great numbers and notably the females. 40 They then put in another part of the case, and read testimony to show that between certain distances, about 100 miles wide, there was a great quantity Of seals-;—a river of seals, if you please. The evidence was intended to show that for about 100 miles wide there was a solid mass of seals during the hunting anel sealing season. All of that documentary testimony, and all of thM^ maps tendered in evidence were intended to demonstrate that there were seals there, and therefore (on their own theory) that they are entitled to recover for the problematic catch of what they chose to take out of 50 the sea because they were there. Naturally, if that testimony stood, may it please your Honours, we are compelled to say that even if the seals were there, there were such modifications that they could not get the seals, not even if the channel, 100 miles wide, was full of them. We are now going into the modifications which'affect a large catch of seals, and we are proving that first and foremost, if they do get seals their best chance of getting them is when they are asleep. We are proving here that they were lost in certain numbers, if they were shot when awake, 6° and we did not object to the examination the other day, anel I eonfess I did not observe that your Honours ruled any such testimony out; but upon this point I did not propose to press the witness any further. I shall insist, however, in the course of the trial, up to the point where the Commissioners rule it out and absolutely demonstrate it, that with a channel full of seals, and packed close with seals, that the hunters cannot get a single seal under certain conditions, to meet the testimony that because seals are there 54* (E. P. Miner—Direct.) they can load their ships ad infinitum with seals. They put that testimony in for no other purpose. They called out from one witness that they could put 7000 sealskins in the "Carolena." Mr. Peters:—Oh, no. Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, it is in the proof, the evidence is in i0 that they could put 7000 seals into the "Carolena." Mr. Peters:—Judge King asked how many seals could she carry. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not remember who asked the question, but it is here. Mr. Peters:—You will find my answer to that remark, that if they once filled her with sealskins they would not want to go sealing any more. 20 Mr. Dickinson:—But that proof, may it please the Commissioners, is no more extraordinary than the proof they put in, and the copies they put in to show that seals are there .certainly in great quantities, in order to show that the probable catch, if the3r had not been seized, would have been the enormous catch that they propose to hold the United States for. That is all it is for. So far as this witness is concerned, as I have just shown, he has testified that he is- a great shot himself, and rarely loses a seal, is a skilful man; but I am asking him1 generally as to the loss of seals. But 3° as the objection is raised, I call marked attention to our proposition that we will submit absolutely convincing proof to this high Commission in answer to this documental proof— the affidavits they have read from the American case that they cann.ot catch seals if the seals are there. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Have we any question before us now, Mr. Dickinson? Mr. Dickinson:—No, your Honour. So far as this witness ,n is concerned I started in on this incidentally. 4° J The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We will endeavor to meet the question when it comes before us. Mr. Peters:—When I perceived that my learned friend was going into the matter to a great extent, I objected. Mr. Dickinson says he does not wish to follow that up any further. If he does I must press the objection; and in that event I would like to have a ruling whether that evidence in there now should stand. The question comes up in a plain, SO distinct, and clear form, and of course if it is allowed we must govern ourselves accordingly, and when the proper time comes, put in rebuttal evidence upon that point. Mr. Dickinson states he has hundreds of witnesses— The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Oh, yes, you can get a thousand on each side. There is not a bit of it, from the first.paragraph read down to the present time, that would have the slightest effect on my mind. It is impossible to tell where it is going to land us unless counsel will agree to limit themselves to the number of witnesses. Mr. Peters:—I have only to say that there is a specific point brought up now as to the number of seals lost by sinking. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We are not- prepared to rule upon it at present. Mr. Dickinson:—Then with this witness I pass it. Go ni ~" ~" -ii"'" ' iiiSTt^ IO 20 30 40 60 . H 542 (E. P. Miner—Direct.) The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The statements made by this witness so far will abide the ruling. Direct examination continued by Mr. Dickinson.. Q.—Now, Captain Miner, will you please state whether the firing of the guns will awaken the seals? A.—It does very much, yes, sir. Q.—Does it tend to make them wild? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And do they run from the ship or from the boats when the guns begin to fire? A.—They get awav from the boat that is firing as fast as they can. Q.—And they can go faster than a boat can be pulled by an oarsman, can they not? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—So that the guns awaken them, and the seals that are near enough to hear the guns, to be frightened by them, make wa3'? A.—I think atmospheric changes have a great deal to do with it. Some days they apparently sleep very soundly, do not awake easily, and others they are very easily disturbed. Q.—And then they are restive and run? A.—Ver3\ Q.—And get away? A.—As soon as they can. Q.—Now is it a fact that, taking the season of July and August, 3'ou get a very small proportion of the seals you see, taking the sealing season from beginning to end? A.—Yes, sir; there is a great differenece in different men who hunt about that. I have carried men with me who I don't think would average one in ten of what they saw; other men would get nine out of every ten that they saw. Q.—You yourself rarely lose a seal when you get after him? A.—If I get close enough to shoot him. Q.—Y'ou usually get a seal when you shoot him? A.— Yes. sir, usually. Q.—So that you get a- very large proportion of the seals you shoot? A.—Yes, sir; I don't like to take chances of their getting away. Q.—And one of the reasons you get so large a proportion is 3'our familiarity with the hunting of seals, so that you do not shoot if the chances are against your geting a dead seal? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you noticed fhat storms suddenly coming up awaken the seals and make them restless? A.—Y'es, even a small breeze, I think, makes them more restive than anything else; the beginning of a storm coming up. Q.—In that case they are awakened? A.—Y'es, sir; I have noticed a great many instances where there are a great many seals in sight in different places; have seen them every few minutes; and when a light breeze sprang up there, was not a seal to be seen. Q.—And of all those seals in sight you would get no more? A.—Yres, sir; they disappeared. Q.—And have you noticed that a heavy rain will awaken seals? A.—Yes, sir; they will not sleep at all in a heavy rain; they will roll and play. Q.—What are the chances of getting seals in sight when they are in that condition? A.—The chances are against getting them; one has to work very cautiously. Q.—So that the large catches are made of the sleeping seals? A.—The largest catches are made in calm weather of sleeping seals. Q.—What, have you to say, Captain Miner, as to this proposition? You seal in Behring Sea at a given point of latitude and longitude on the 8th of July, we will say, 1886, and you find seals in plenty and good hunting. Does it follow that vou will find seals at the same season of the vear an- (E. P. Miner—Dire -Cross.) A.—No, sir, other year in the same latitude and longitude? it doesn't. Q.—Is that your experience? A.—My experience has been that where I found the feed I found the seals. Q.—You follow the feed rather than the seals? A.—Yes, sir.' Cross-examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: jo Q.—What is your age, Captain Miner? A.—42. Q.—What was 3Tour age when you first went to sea? I went to sea in 1875; I was 21 years old. Q.—Had yon ever' been employed in shipyards? A sir. Q.—Speaking generally, did you do any business at all before you were 21 years of age? A.—I did different business with horses and farming. Q.—Then you went to sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Before the mast or as a hunter? A.—As a hunter. 20 Q.—Were you a good shot at 21? A.—Yes, sir; I was taken because I was a good shot. Q.—And from that time down have you followed any other occupation until you finally left the sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—You have not been engaged in the construction of ships? A.—No, sir. Q.—Y'ou could not construct a ship? A.—I could not. Q.—Your time has been fully occupied with your pursuit of hunting? A.—Y'es, sir; except winters, when I did nothing—waiting for the next voyage. 3° Q.—Now when you first went hunting you were on the Japanese coast and Russian coast? A.—First went hunting on the California coast. Q.—In what vicinity did you hunt? How far north? A. —The first voyage was from San Francisco south. Q.—Going out about when? A.—1 could not tell just the time of year; I think along in March some time. Q.—About March, and you steered south? A.—Yes, sir. Q,—And what would be the course of the ship when you started from port, for what place would you make? *V.— We went to Santa Barbara Islands first. Q.—And how many times did 3rou take that trip? A.—I took that trip twice. Q.—The same course each time? A.—No, once from San Francisco; that was the first; then from Santa Barbara. The vessel fitted out from Santa Barbara.. Q.—What point would you first make; did you start the same time of• year? A.—About the same time; we made Santa Rosa Islands first. 50 Q-—What sort of Juck had you there? A.—We had very poor luck the first time. Q.—But got some seals? A.—No, I was after otter. Q.—You went after otter? A.—Y'e Q.—And the next time after otter? after otter. Q.—Did you see seals on these occasions? ing ones only. Q.—But you saw seals on both occasions? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What year does that bring us to, your second otter 6o trip? A.—That brings me—there were three, two in one vessel—that brings me to 1880. q,—Xow, then, 1881? A.—In 1880 I came north. Q.—On which coast? A.—On this coast; a vessel fitted out from San Francisco. q.—What month? A.—Fitted out in March, I think. Q.—What for? A.—For otter hunting and sealing. Q.—For what cruise? A.—For about eight or nine months. 40 sir. A.—The next time A.—Scatter- i if i r -r 'i M-jiiii5 544 io 20 3° (E. P, Miner—Cross.) Q.—Where? A.—Up the coast here, through the Behring Sea to the Russian coast. Q.—How many months would that make your vessel out? What month of the year did you expect to start? A.—We started in March. Q.—For what time did you expect to stop? . A.—We expected to stay until September. Q.—Y'ou fitted out for an eight months' cruise? A.—For : about an eight months' cruise. Q.—What time in March did you fit out' A.—About the first of March. Q.—When would the otter hunting stop? A.—One can hunt otter all the year. Q.—When did you expect the otter hunting to stop? A.— Not until September. Q.—So that you fitted out then to hunt otter from the first of March until the first of September? A.-—Yes, until about the latter part of September. Q.—What would you require in connection with otter hunting? What sort of boats? A.—We used then 23 foot boats. Q.—What width? A.—About five feet and a half; about the same width" they have now. Q.—What cost? A.—The otter boats then, I think, cost $115 or $120. Q.—What had you in the way of weapons? A.—Rifles altogether. Q.—On that occasion how many rifles had. you? A.— I had one rifle of my own and usually one of the ship's. Q.—How many had the ship? A.—I couldn't say. Q.—How many hunters had you? A.—There were three. . Q.—Were these otter hunters? A.—Otter hunters; yes, sir. Q.—Now this was in 1881. was it not? A.—1880 Q.—Take 1881. Y'ou are'sure this was 1880? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That was the first trip up the coast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You went to the Kurile Islands the first trip? A.— 40 1880 I went to the Kurile Islands the first trip. Q.—When was your first trip north here? A.—Thai was in 1880. Q.—Then in 1881 you went again? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—To the same place? A.—Very much the same place Q.—Did you get seals on both occasions? A.—Yes, sir Q.—Do you know the feeding grounds around the Kurile Islands for sealing? A.-—Right off the coast. Q.—About where would the feeding grounds be off the Ku • rile Islands? A.—They resemble the feeding grounds on -> this coast very much. Q.—How do you know them? A.—According to where you find the fish. Squids is one of the principal feeas. Q.—Do you look for the squid, or for the place on the chart? A.—No, sir; I never look at a chart to find the seals. Q.—I am speaking of the Kurile Islands; where are the feeding rounds there? A.—From about, say, 10. or 15 to 200 miles off shore. Q.—Do you go by the chart to these feeding grounds? A. 60 —No, sir; I had nothing to do with that. Q.—I am speaking of the vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you steer for those places on both occasions? A. —No; when we got there we steered right for the islands. We were then looking for otter more than seals. Q.—What is the differenee' in looking for otter from looking for seals? A.—The otter feed closer around the rocks. Q.—Then you have got to get near shore for them? A.— Y'es, sir. 10 5o Go 545 (E. P. Miner—< 'ross Q.—What distance away would you look for the seals? ■ A. —Would look for them from 15. miles up to 150 off shore. Q.—What did you look for on those occasions at the Kurile Islands? A.—We hunted for otte Q.—Let me make myself understood. Y'ou go to different places for otter, you tell me—the rocks, for instance. That is not where you go for seals? A.—It was on that occasion, because we intended to get our seals there from the rocks. There were some isolated rookeries there. Q.—You went to take them on the land? A.—No, sir. Q.—Against the law? A.—No, sir, as I understood we had no fishing treaty then with Japan. Q—When did you see these feeding grounds over there? A.—Which do you mean? Q.—The grounds you told me where the squid were? When did you discover them? A.—It was nothing to be discovered. 20 Q-—Well known? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And did you go there on either occasion to look for seals? A.—We went on the occasion I am telling vou. ii.—1881? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And 1880? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you get any seals either time in those place-*? A.—In '80 we got only a very few seals. In '81 we got—J couleln't say now, but our voyage then I think was about 900 seals. : Q.—In 1882 what did you do? A.—In 1882 I sailed out 30 of Yokohama. - Q.—And for what grounds? A.—For the Kurile Islands. Q.—The same grounds? A.—Yes, sir, the same grounds. Q.—Hunted the same grounds? A.—Yes, si Q.—What did you do the next year? A.—Sailed over the same grounds again. Q.—'With the same object of hunting otter? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That'was 18S3? A.—Yes, sir. 0.—What about 1884? A.—In 1884 I made one trip 40 through the Japan Sea looking for a supposed island. Q.—You were looking for an island that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1885 what were you doing? A.—I was master then of the "Penelope." Q.—You fitted her out where? A.—In Yokohama.- Q.—For what voyage? A.—For a voyage north otter hunting. Q.—How many months? A.—The v'03'ages there were about six months; six or seven. Q.—You fitted out for a six months' voyage otter hunting? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—With the usual otter hunting outfit? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—How many rifles had you? A.—We had about two rifles apiece; six or seven rifles. We had one spare one. Q.—How many guns? A.—Had one shot gun to my recollection aboard, my own. Q.—That was in 1885? A.—1885. Q.—You were not then outfitting for seal hunting at all? A.—No, sir. Q.—When did you first outfit for seals? A.—Outfitted for seal hunting, the way we do now, in '87. Q.—What do you mean by the way we do now? A.— Fitting out entirely for sea Q.—You did not pretend to be equipped for seal hunting in 1885, did you? A.—Well, we expected, as I tell you, to find isolated rookeries. Q.—L)id you do any other seal hunting at sea? A.—^Not seal hunting at sea. 35 jjrn mild iniiffidirrgffBhi I Ifl 546 (E. P. Miner—Cross.) Q.—In 1886 what did you do? A.—1 made the same trip. Q.—From Yokohama? A.—Yes, but ended up in Victoria. Q.—Where did you fit out in 1886? A.—Y'okohama. Q.—What voyage? A.—The same voyage north. Q.—That was not for hunting seals at sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—In 1887 what did you do? A.—In '87 I fitted out in Victoria. 10 Q.—For seal hunting only? A.—No, sir. Q.—No preparation for otters? A.—No, sir. Q._What month did you fit out? A.—I fitted out in February. Q.—For how long a cruise? A.—I expected to make about an eight or nine months' cruise. Q.—Is that the usual length for which you fit out seal hunting? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Is that the usual month you fit out? A.—I have fit ted out in December, January' and February. Q.—When you speak of the nine months' cruise, is it in March you usually fit out? A.—No, sir, we usually get in by October anyway. Q.—At any rate, in this year, 1887 you fitted out for that period? A.—Y'es, I fitted out in February. Q.—And started? A.—Started, I think, about the middle of February. Q.—Who was the owner of the "Penelope?" A.—Mr. Gray. Q.—Where did he reside? A.—In Yokohama. 3° Q.—Where did you get your instructions in regard to hunting? A.—It was understood when I left Yokohama I was to come in here. Q.—And do what? A.—Go hunting seals. Q.—From Yictoria? A.—From Victoria. Q.—And were you told where to hunt? A.—No, sir. Q.—You were to fit out here for seal hunting? A.—Yres, sir. Q.—That was in 1887? A.—'87. Q.—Had you fitted out practically at Yokohama? A.-- 4° No, sir; only for 1886 anel 1887. Q.—Took no part of the outfit there? A.—No, sir. Q.—With whom did you deal in outfitting at this port? Who was the agent for Mr. Gray? A.—He did not at first have an agent. I was agent first. Afterwards I think Mr. Moss was agent. Q.—Who did you consult when you came here in 1887? A. —I consulted Mr. Lubbe and Mr. Moss. Q.—Before you came here in March, 1887, did you know Victoria well? Had you resided here for an3' length of 50 time? A.—I had not resided here. I had been here. Q.—When had you been here? A.—I was here in 1881. Q.—Just touching at the port? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were a comparative stranger in 1887 to the business men he*re? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And with the prices of goods here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You had no occasion to buy provisions or outfits before 1887 in Victoria? A.—No, sir. Q.—No dealings with vessels; knew nothing of the place? g0 As a stranger, whom did you consult in making your arrangements? A.—1 think Mr. Lubbe is the man I consulted more than anybody else. Q.—He lives here now? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—How long did you stay out on that cruise? A.—I got back some time in September. Q.—Where did you go? A.—I went on the coast in the spring, and then into Behring Sea in the summer. Q.—When did you Behring Sea in July. Q.—What time in July? A.—Between the 5th and 10th, I think; if my memory serves me right, some time the first part of July. Q.—What number of canoes had you—boats? A.—Six boats altogether; five large boats and a stern boat, io Q-—What course were you making when you enteredtthe Sea; what was your direction or destination? A.—I entered the Sea from some of the western passages, the Four Mountain Pass. Q.—Where did you propose making for—what point in the Sea? A.—Somewhere between Ounalaska and the Prib3- loff Islands. Q.—By the time you got to the Pass I suppose you had more definite knowledge as to where you could go? A.—1 was going to look until I found the seals. 20 Q-—Well, you had no idea of stopping your ship anywhere? A.—No, sir. Q.—You were going to sail until you found seals? A.— Until I found seals. Q.—What is your course usually? A.—The usual course is through the Unimak Pass. Q.—After you get into the Pass you do not go straight ahead, do you? What do you make for? A.—After getting through the Pass? Q.—Yes. A.—We then begin cruising about the Sea. 30 Q-—Did you ever hear of any feeding grounds in Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—You never heard of any particularly good grounds for catching seals in Behring Sea? A.—I have heard of good grounds, or of good catches having been made entirely around the islands in all directions from them. Q.—Good sealing rounds? A.—Yes, sir.. Q.—Do you know of any places similar to those described over to the Kurile Islands? A.—Feeding grounds? Q.—Yes. A.—I didn't undertake to describe any there. 4° Q.—Did you ever inquire for these? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did it ever strike you as peculiar that there should be no squid grounds on one side of the Paenfic, and an absence of similar feeding grounds while 3'ou were in Behring Sea in 1887? A.—I didn't see any absence of good feeding rounds. Q.—Y'ou think it all good feeding rounds? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know the Fair Weather grounds? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—They are outside the Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What do you know about them? A.—I have hunted 5C there a great deal. Q.—Have they a good name? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is for the period betore the seals reached the Sea? A.—They have a good name for sealing, especially on account of the weather. Q.—Is there any other reason than the weather? A.— Not that I know of. Q.—Never heard anything about the feeding ground there? A.—The feedin<? ground there is the same. 60 Q.—Have* you heard, as a matter of fact, that that was an extra good fishing ground? A.—No, sir, I haven't. Q.—Do you know anything about the soundings in the Sea? A.—Yes, sir, what my chart tells me. Q.—What occasion have you had for carefully examining the soundings, say outside of the islands irrespective of navigation purposes? A.—None at all. Q.—Had no occasion? A.—Had no occasion. 548 (E. P. Miner—Cross.) Q.—You never heard of its being done by any one? A.— No, sir. Q.—You left the Sea what time in 1887? A.—I left the Sea some time in August. Q.—What time? A.—It was along about the middle of August. Q.—Do you know the date within a week? A.—It would io surely be within a week if it was in the middle of August. Q.—Who has the log? A.—I haven't the log; it has been lost or destroyed. Q.—Have you any papers that will refresh your memory? in regard to your evidence given to-day? A.—Nothing that I know of. * Q.—Y'ou speak entirely from recollection of these years? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you think you left the sea the middle of August, 1887? A.—I know it must have been about that time. I 20 know it was about the same time some vessel was seized. I cannot remember now which vessel. And as soon as I got the news I went to the westward, Q.—Where did you hear the cutters were at that time? A.—I heard that they were seizing not far from where I was. Q.—So you got away as far as you could get? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How far diel you get away before you sealed? A.— I didn't seal anv more at all; we didn't stop the vessel after •5° that. Q.—Could you show me on the chart, captain, about where you were when you got the news of the seizures? A.—(Examining) I was sailing about here (indicating) from 30 to 70 miles from Bogoslot, Bogoslof bearing south southeast. Q.—And then you went from there, you say? A.—From there I went directly west, away out here as far as Attu. Q.—And came out in that way? (indicating) A.—Yes, sir. 40 sir. Q.—Avoiding the pass by which you came in? A.—Yes, Q.—For purposes of safety, is that right? A.—I avoided the pass; I went to the westward to try and continue my sealing. Q.—But you did not go back the old way for an obvious reason? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—How many seals did you take after you started from that position which you gave me on the chart, that season? A.—I don't remember of taking a seal; I might have got two c0 or three, but I don't remember. Q.—Did you lower the boats? A.—No, sir, the boats were never lowered. Q.—Did you search? A.—We were looking from the vessel, that is all. Q.—You did not see any seal there? A.—Not to amount to anything. Q.—Did you ever seal there again? A.—Not by Attu. Have sealed in Russian waters. 60 -Q*—Now, from what you have already told me captain, 1 take it that your knowledge of these shipyards in San Francisco consists chiefly in regard to their existence? A.—I know them, and I— Q.—You have not worked in them? A.—No, sir. Q.—Your business never called you there? A.—I called on the owners. sir. Q.—You have not worked in these shipyards? A.—No, IO 20 40 50 60 (E. P. Miner—Cross Q.—When you said in 1887 you did not know of any snip yard equipped for building sealers, did you ever look for one in Victoria? A.—No. Q.—You were a stranger when you came, and how long did you remain in this port in 1887? A.—I remained abou three months. Q.—What were you doing then? my vessel. Q.—What were you doing then? Q.—Did you know the "Star Shipyard?" A.—I knew the "Star" ways for hauling out a vessel. Q.—You knew that ships had been built here, I suppose? A.—I had not known it then. Q.—You did not mean to intimate <that ships could not be built in British Columbia in 1887? A.—No, sir. Q.—Nor that ships had not been built? A.—No, sir. Q.—Nor ships suitable for sealing? A.—No, sir. Q.—So that when you said you knew of no shipyard building sealers you meant that you had no knowledge of the place at all? A.—I had had knowledge of the place then for two different times, three or four months each. Q.—But you do not profess that at that time you had any reasonable knowledge of the city of Victoria, or the various industries of the place, or what they could do in connection with shipping? A.—I think six months' residence here was quite ample. Q.—What six months had you had? A.—Three months or more in 1886 and three months in 1887. Q.—Three months in 1886 and three in 1887, enabled you to speak positively as to what this place could do in the way of building ships? A.—I think so. Q.—Will you swear that you were at that time fully informed as to the capacity of this place for ship building, and of the facilities for ship buildng? A.—No> I can't. Q.—Will you undertake to say that there were not ships being built in 1886 and 1887 in the port of Victoria? A.— I can't remember seeing one. Q.—Will you undertake to say on your oath that there was not a ship on the stocks in Victoria being built? A.—No, sir. Q.—And will you undertake to say on your oath that there was not a ship on the" stocks in the course of construction in 1887? A.—No, sir. Q.—Then our knowledge was not very great as to what this town could or could not do in 1886 or 1887? A.—I had no occasion to make inquiries. Q.—Now in 1886, in 1887, you pretend to be able to say on your oath what vessels were engaged in sealing either from the port of San Francisco or from the port of Victoria or from the Sound? A.—By hearing them named over I can. but I couldn't without the assistance of some one naming them. If there was a list of vessels called I could pick every one out that was engaged in sealing. Q.—Where did you acquire that knowledge? A.—From being amongst the sealers. Q.—In what year? A.—In 1886 and 1887. Q.—And in 1886 you were sufficiently among the sealers sailing from San Francisco and the port of Victoria to state on your oath to-day what vessels were out or what vessels were not out, if the total list is read out to you? A.—I am familiar enough; yes, sir. Q.—Were you in company with them? A.—In port.; yes, sir. Q.—How long were vou in company with themi? Did you start out to sea with them? A.—In 1887. KEB &S9 550 io 20 30 (E; P. Miner—Cross.) CJ.—Were you in company with the sealing fleet of San Francisco in 1886? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were you in company with the .sealing fleet of Victoria in 1886? A.—In port only. Q.—In the port of Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Started out with them? A.—Saw them on their return. Q.—In what month? A.—In September, and from then on. Q.—In September, 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You are positive of the year? A.—Of the year. Q.—And the month? A.—No, in October. Q.—You arrived in October. You saw the sealing fleet of Victoria in the port of Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In the month of October, 1886; you swear to that? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—Positively? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You counted them alfever? A.—No, I did not. I met the men from them. Q.—Where were they lying? A.—They were lying in the harbor. Q-—What harbor? A.—Here, by the customs house. Q.—Will you swear that they were lying by the customs house? A.—I swear I saw some lying there. Q.—Will you swear there were three lying there? A.—I think there were. Q-—Now tell me how many of the sealing fleet in October, 1886, you examined? A.—I examined none. Q,—How long did you remain in the port of Victoria in October? A.—I remained there, with the exception of maybe a little trip away of a couple of weeks, until I sailed the following February. Q.—You had ho business at that time that made it necessary or useful for you to be familiar with all these ships? A. —I became familiar with the masters and men employed on them. Q.—Can you give me the names of all the masters that you met in this port in 1886 connected with sealing vessels? A.—1 cannot give you the names of all of them. Q.—If I read them over to you would you know them all so that you could swear to them? A.—I think I would. Q.—Would you swear you would? Are you as certain of the names of the masters as you are of the vessels? A.— No, sir. Q.—And yet 3'ou met the masters and did not meet the vessels at sea? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—So that when you speak of these vessels being in port and engaged in sealing you rely now, as I understand 3rou, on what the captains told you? A.—I relied on— Q.—Are you, or are you not, relying on what the captains told you in that October, 1886? A.—As to their being sealers? Q.—Yes. A.—Y'es, sir, and also the talk in town. Every sealer was well known. Q.—And from that talk you are speaking in regard to these vessels that were engaged in sealing that year? A.—Yes, 60 sir. Q.—And the same thing in regard to San Francisco? A. —I met masters of the vessels one time and another. Q.—How many did you meet in 1S86? A.—I couldn't tell 3'ou that. Q.—So that you require to have the names of the vessels suggested to you before answering more definitely in regard to what vessels were engaged in sealing? A.—All of them; yes, sir. 40 50 IO 20 40 60 (E. P. Miner—Cross.) Q.—Now you do not pretend, do you, Captain, when you go over that list to speak of these vessels in regard to anything else than that they were engaged in sealing so far as you have heard? A.—No, sir. Q.—Y'ou know nothing about the actual condition of them? A.—No, sir, I do not. Q.—Nor the use that was actually made, whether coasting and sealing, or coasting alone? A.—No, sir. I know that some of them were running to the stations on the west coast. Q.—For all you know, Captain, in regard to the list that was read to you to-day, some of those vessels may not have been sealing at all—the vessels that Mr. Dickinson mentioned to you? A.—Some of them I did not know. I stated so. Q.—I suppose you do not contend* that it is nee*essary to have a shipyard like White's, Turner's and Dixon's to build a sealer? A.—No, sir, 3'ou can build a sealer on the beach wherever you can get the timber. Q.—As a matter of fact, very good sealers have been bui on the beach? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What do you mean by a vessel adapted to sealing? A.—By a vessel adapted to sealing I mean one that is a moderately fair sailer, a good sea boat, and of about the right size to be comfortable according to the crew you wish to take. I should call nothing comfortable for sealing under 65 tons, or nothing larger than 125 tons. Q.—But would you undertake to say in giving your opinion, from the box, that a vessel under 65 tons was not adapt- 30 ed for sealing? A.—No, sir, I would not. Q.—You would prefer for comfort a vessel of 65 tons? A.—Not lower. Q.—As a matter of fact some successful sealers have been under 65 tons, have they not? A.—I think so. Q.—You do not need a regular racer for a good sealing boat, I suppose? A.—No, I think not. Q.—Will you tell me why a vessel over 125 tons would not be adapted for sealing, in your opinion? A.—Because she would be rather heavy to handle, hard on the gear, and harder on the crew. Q.—How about expense? A.—That is what I say, more expensive on the gear. Q.—And too large to be easily handled? A.—Too large to be easily handled. Q.—Your ideal is 65 tons, is it? A.—No, my ideal is about 100 ton vessel. Q.—Do you know the average tonnage of vessels that have been engaged in sealing? A.—I think the average would be very hard to strike. Q.—Could you come within ten tons of it? A.—No, sir. Q.—Have they been under 100 or over? I think the average would be— Q.—A good deal under? A.—Yes, sir, not very much. Q—Well, about 20 tons under? A.—Possibly. Q.—You cannot come nearer than that? A.—No, sir. Q.—When did you last see the "Annie?" A.—I last saw the "Annie" in '87. Q.—Where did you see her? A.—I think I saw her— Q.—I do not want you to misunderstand me. When you cannot speak positively, tell me that, and we' will have it so understood. I am asking you now to speak without any doubt whatever. If you cannot speak without doubt, say so? A.—I saw her the last time in Drake's Bay in California, but as to the year I couldn't say. Q.—Now, the "San Diego," can you give me any positive information as to when you saw her last? A.—The "San Diego" I saw the last time in 1.894 on the Japanese coast. Q.—Did you see her in 1893? A.—No, sir. a^M«»ran««i KS S2 io 20 30 40 50 60 (El P. Miner—Cross.) - Q.—When was the first time you saw her? A.—T saw her the first time, I think— Q.—Can you give me positively the year when you first saw that ship? A.—I cannot give you the year positively that I first saw her. Q.—You mentioned seeing her in 1894; are you positive as to that? A.—I know I saw her in '81. Q.—Can you give me any other year in which you are positive you saw her? A.—No, sir, I cannot. Q.—The "Otter?" A.—I saw the "Otter" first in '81. ■ Q.—Can you give me positively another year? A.—No, sir, I cannot. Q.—The "Alexander?" A.—The "Alexander" I saw in '80. Q.—You are positive of that? A.—Positive that I saw her in '80. Q.—Can you give me with certainty another year? A.— I" have seen her several times since that, but I could not give the positive year. Q.—The "City of San Diego?" A.—The "City of San Diego" I saw in '88. Q.—Where did you see her? A.—In Neah Bay. Q.—What month? A.—I should say in May. ■ Q.—Are you sure of that? A.—Very sure of it. Q.—Are you sure it was in 1888? A.—Sure it was in 1888. Q.—Had you seen the "City of San Diego" before 1888? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where? A.—I have seen her in San Frandsco. Q.—What month? A.—I wouldn't undertake to say. Q.—What part of the year? A.—In the fall of the year some time. Q.—You swear to that? A.—Yes, sir, I swear to that. Q.—Where did you see her, what part of San Francisco? A.—I saw her at one of the wharves. Q.—Do you know who were the owners at that time? A.— I think Mr. Handy. Q.—Has he a wharf? A.—Not that I know of. Q.—Are you positive you saw her lying at a wharf? A.— Yes, sir. • Q:—Men on board of her? A.—I surely was talking with some men on board of her- Q.—Were you on board of her? A.—No, sir; I don't think I was. ■ Q.—Where did you meet the men who were on board of her with whom you were talking? A.—I couldn't recollect that. Q.—It amounts to this: Some one told you she was in port, that is all you mean? A.—No, sir. Q.—You actually saw the vessel? A.—I used to take the wharves in ever3' dav, as everv seafaring man does. Q.—Tn 1887? ' A*—Yes, sir. Q.—What makes vou able to say vou saw that vessel in 1887? A.—Nothing special. Q.—Can you tell me every other schooner that was in port at San Francisco at the same time? A.—I don't think I could, every one. 0-—You had no more business with the "San Diego" than with the others? A.—There was a friend of mine that was em her that year. Q.—What was his name? A.—Crews. He is now dead. Q.—Was he on the boat in 1887? A.—He was on the boat in 1887. Q.—At the time she was in port? A.—When she came in port. 0.—Was he on her in 1888? A.—I could not tell you as to that. 553 (E. P. Miner—Cross.) Q.—What other sealing vessels did you see in San Francisco at that time that you are positive about? A.—Well.' there are so many of them that I cannot call to mind. Q.—Are you positive about this vessel? A.—Yes, sir; the "San Jose" I know I saw there. The Commissioners then rose. *-,, io 20 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December, 16, 1896. At 10:30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The Commissioners are ready to dispose of the question which - was reserved yesterday. The question put by Mr. Bodwell was as follows: "What is your experience as to the propor- • tion of seals which are lost by hunters in sealing? I mean what is the proportion of seals they lose compared with those' they get?" Upon the consideration then given to that question the Commissioners apparently concluded at that time that" they would not enter upon that line of examination. There was no formal ruling upon it; but, even if there had been a formal ruling, in view of the fact that it came up incidentally, and was not carefully considered, we would not feel bound by it. In fact I think I can safely say that the Commissioners do not feel themselves absolutely bound by any ruling which they may make as to which serious doubts afterwards arise. Counsel need not feel embarrassed by any supposition that -0 the Commissioners are not willing to hear suggestions pointing out that they have made errors or mistakes in rulings which they have entered at any time. The result is, taking this question with what has appeared from the counsel for the United States, including what was read by them from the answer of the United States, that it is- apparent both parties have shown a desire to enter upon this line of investigation. The objections were raised by the Commissioners and not by the counsel. This, however, does not conclude' the matter, as it is frequently the right cq and duty of a judicial tribunal to interfere when, from its own standpoint, it sees that an incidental issue which counsel desire to raise is liable to result in protracted invesfi|f|E« tion, and with a practical result very doubtful, and perhaps wholly immaterial. The Commissioners have carefully reconsidered this matter, and have come to a conclusion which they think will protect every right which can be claimed on either side, and which enables them to practically control this line of investigation, which they regard at the most as having a very remote bearing on the case. The question Go put by Mr. Bodwell relates, not to any theory, but to the practical observation of a person engaged in the business of catching seals—his own experience. An examination of the American reprint of the proceedings at Paris fortifies what the Commissioners have a right to assume as an historical fact, that this question was one which was sharply and earnestly contested by both governments and capable of involving an amount of proof almost unlimited. Therefore the Commissioners, while disposed to allow this line of proof to (E. P. Miner—Cross.) be opened up, feel it necessary to restrict and limit it to the character of evidence suggested by the question put by Mr. Bodwell, that is to say, they limit it to the practical experience of witnesses describing what has occurred in their . own experience. They also limit the number of witnesses, to allow not more than six to be called on the question on either side. io The Commissioners also present to counsel an alternative which they have no power to direct counsel to accept, and which, therefore, cannot be made an order by the Commissioners unless counsel agree to it. The alternative is, that instead of calling witnesses here, counsel on either side, if they agree, may put in references to the American reprint covering this matter, doing this by mere reference. That will enable counsel on either side to put in, for example, not only what is found in the case of the Government which the counsel represents, but what is found in the case of the other 20 Government, or in the report of the commission which accompanies those cases. That is to say, Mr. Dickinson, on his side, could put in, by reference, anything which appears touching this matter in the American reprint, all the volumes included, and Mr. Peters, on the other side, could put in anything which appears in all the volumes touching the same matter. That would be a matter for agreement between counsel. We are not prepared, as suggested by my learned associate, to say absolutely that the number of witnesses shall be six. That is merely what occurred to us 30 would be a sufficient number. It should, however, be limited before we enter on the inquir3\ unless, of course, in contingencies which may happen, the Commisioners, for good reasons, may make a change in the limitation hereafter. Mr. Peters:—Mr. Dickinson and myself agree that six witnesses will in all probability be quite sufficient on either side. So far as we are concerned the difficulty presents itself, that our case in this matter has been closed to a certain extent; but I suggested to Mr. Dickinson that we cannot at once pick up the witnesses we would like to examine on this matter, and that there would be no objection to our putting in that evidence in any of the following cases, to be used in this case the same as though taken here. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The Commissioners agree that there is no objection to that. I ought to say that this broad question has not been put to Captain Miner, if I recollect correctly. Mr. Dickinson:—I asked him about his personal experi- 5° ence, your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—To a certain limited extent. I think it but fair for you to understand that you are entitled to put the broad question to him at some time. Cross-examination of Captain Miner continued by Sir C. H. Tupper: 60 Q-—When did you last see the "Unger?" A.—I couldn't say as to the year; I saw her last at Sand Point. Q.—You are not positive as to what time? A.—I am not positive within a year. Q.—About what year? A.—Either 1887 or 1888, I would not be positive which. Q.—When did you first see her? A.—The same year. . Q.—You never saw her before? A.—I saw .her the one vear. I saw her in the summer when I was at Sand Point. 40 io 20 30 ■ 5SS (E. P. Miner—Cross.) Q.—You happened to run into Sand Point and she was there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When did you see the "Nargai?" A.—The same year. Q.—Are you positive that you saw them both in .1887 or 1888? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Would you be surprised to know that the "Nargai" was lost before that date? A.—I would. Q.—You.know she was lost at sea? A.—She was lost, yes, sir. Q.—Would you undertake to swear that she was not lost in 1881? A.—I wouldn't undertake to swear when she was lost. Q.—When did you see the "Laura?" A.—I saw the "Laura" in San Francisco. Q.—When did you see her? A.—In 1888 or 1889. Q.—Do you know that Captain Hansen bought her? A.— I had heard so. Q.—Do you remember the year he bought her? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you hear what he bought her for? A.—No, sir. Q.—Do you know what her value was? A.—I understood that she was offered for about $2000. Q.—What would you consider her value? A.—I should say that was about her value. Q.—What sort of a ship was she? Fast sailer? A.— She was supposed to be a moderately good sailer. Q.—What were her lines? A.—She was rather a sharp vessel. Q.—Do you know when she was built? A.—I do not. Q.—Do you know what she was built of? A.—Builfc/oi- Oregon pine. Q.—Do you know her tonnage? A.—22 to 25 tons, I should think. Q.—You would not undertake to sa3'? A.—No, sir. Q.—Y'ou would not undertake to say she was over 19, would you? A.—No, sir. All the means I had of knowing is looking at her, about the size. 40 Q.—Where did that sale take place that you heard of? A. —I didn't sav I heard of a sale. Had been offered. Q.—Offered what? A.—$2,000. Q.—Where? A.—San Francisco. Q.—But you did not hear whether an3' one accepted it? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you think that a fair price for her? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In that market? A.—In that market. Q.—And you were captain of the "Penelope" in 1883, were 3'ou not? A.—No, sir. 50 ' Q.—Sure? A.—Sure. Q.—Who was captain in 1883? A.—I forget the man's name; he was an Englishman. Q.—You had nothing to do with her? A.—I was aboard of her. Q.—But you forget the captain's name? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You are quite positive, captain, that you were not her master in 1883? A.—Quite positive. Q.—And you don't know who was master? A.—I cannot 60 call his name. Q.—How long did you sail with him? A.—I think about four months. Q.—Never have seen him since? A.—Never have seen him since. Q.—You were speaking of the "Penelope" being in port here, just tell me again when you were first in Y'ictoria on the "Penelope?" A.—In Victoria in October of 1886. saa 556 io 20 30 40 50 60 (E. P. Miner—Cross.) Q.—How long did you stay in port then? A.—I stayed in port then until the following February. Q.—Was the ship hauled out on an3r slip in Victoria during the time you were here? A.—She was. <4-—Whose slip? A.—A man named Cook's. "Q.—What was she hauled out for? A.—To be painted; her bottom cleaned and painted. Q.—Do you remember the dues that you paid? A.—I think about $60; I think somewhere about that. Q.—That was simply for— A.—For the whole work. Q.—You had the "Penelope" hauled out in San Francisco? A.—No, sir. Q.—Any vessel of her size? A.—I had the "Lily L." Q.—How do the dockage dues compare and the work of that character—the cost? A.—The work that I had done on the "Lily L.." I think, came to a little more than that. Q.—I ask you, from your experience in the two ports, where is it the cheapest to have that work done, in Victoria or in San Francisco? A.—1 didn't see much difference. Q.—You cannot tell me the cost in either case? A.—I say about $60. Q.—In each place? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How near can you come to that for a certainty in San Francisco? A.—In my case I can come within $10 of it. Q.—You are sure of that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—But you do not know which was the heaviest? A.— No, sir; I couldn't swear as to that. Q.—Whose slip were you on in San Francisco? A.—Turner's. Q.—Now, in 1888, would vou state again the ship that vou had charge of? A.—The "Lily L." Q.—Where did you go? A.—I went to Behring Sea and Copper Islands. Q.—From what port did you sail? A.—San Francisco. Q.—Fitted out there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What month did you leave? A.—Early in the spring, as to the month, whether it was February or March. Q.—For what length of voyage—for how many months? A.—Usually about eight months. Q—And when you say Behring Sea and Copper Islands, do you mean the Pribyloff and Copper Islands, or simply Copper Islands? A.—No, sir; we say the waters around the islands; we mean the hunting rounds. Q.—That is on the Russian side? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—In 1889? A.—I was in the "Lily L." Q".—And where did you fit out? A.—I fitted out in San Francisco. Q.—For the same voyage? A.—The same voyage, with the exception— Q.—I mean in period of time? A—About the same period of time. Q.—And bound toy what? A.—Bound for the same voyage, with the exception that I did not intend to go to Copper Islands. Q.—Well, you did go there, did you not? A.—Y'es, I did, for a short time. Q.—And where else did you go? A.—Behring Sea. Q.—On the American side? A.—On the American side. Q.—What time did you get to the American side? A.— We arrived there, not until August. 5-' Q.—That was in 1889? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I suppose you had some reason for not going on the, American side in 1888? A.—I understood there were sdz- ures. IO 20 (E. P. Miner—Cross.) Q.—Will you be good enough to look at this chart? About August of 1889 you say you went from the Russian side over to the American side? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What course did you take from the Russian waters? A.—(Examining chart)—I came directly across. Q.—For what point in the Sea did you make? A.—Wherever I could find seals, from here over (indicating). Q.—Where did you begin hunBng? A.—I sealed— Q.—For instance, where did you start from.? A.—--South of Copper Islands. Q.—And what course did you make? A.—About east. Q.—Where would that bring you out? A.—Bring me out about latitude 55; I began sealing, if I remember, about 1 gitude west 173. Q.—As near as you can remember? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And where did you then proceed? A.—I hunted a little further eastward than that. Q.—To where? A.—To about 170. Q.—Did you purposely keep out of the old spot? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were you afraid of seizures in 1889? A.—I didn't have any fear of that. Q.—Did you keep a lookout for the cutters? A.—Kept a lookout always. r Q.—This point that you indicate on the chart is outside, or practically outside, of the track of the cutters, is it not? A.—As I understand, they cruise the whole sea within a ra- 30 dius of 200 miles. Q.—You did not understand they made a more frequent cruise between Ounalaska and the Pribyloffs? A.—Except as they make their course from Ounalaska to the islands. Q.—Do you know, as a matter of fact, or do you not know, that they are more on that track than on any other? A.— Yes, sir; take their course from Ounalaska. Q.—As a matter of fact, you kept away from the track in 1889. A.—No more than I would from any other place. Q.—As a matter of fact, did you or did you not,? A.—I 40 did not cross that. Q.—Did you make Bogosloff Island in 1889? A.—I don't remember of having made it. Q.—Do you remember of going over that far? A.—I think I was that far. Q.—How near did 3'ou go to the American side in that season of 1889? A.—Do you mean coast? Q.—For instance, over towards this direction (indicating) in which you were making towards the islands? A.—Oh, I think probably about 60 or 70 miles. ' Q.—Show me on the chart? A.—The nearest I must have been was somewhere about here (indicating). Q.—What is that in latitude and longitude? A.— Between longitude 169 and 170 west, and about 55 north latitude. Q.—Then you got no nearer to Unimak, for instance, than that in hunting? A.—No, sir, not that I can remember. Q.—Now, when did you go out of the sea in 1889? A.— In 1889 I went out of the sea about the latter part of August, 00 if 1 remember right. Q.—Through what pass did you go out? A.—J couldn't say whether I went out through Unimak or Akitan. Q.—Are you certain that you went out of either? A.—I went out one or the other. Q.—In 1890 what was your course? A.—In 1890 I was in the "Allie I. Alger." Q.—Fitted out where? A.—Fitted out at Seattle. wm io 553 (E, P. Miner—Cross.) Q.—Who fitted her out? A.—Mr. Nickerson; I mean Mr. Nickerson paid .for it. Q.—What business place was she fitted out chiefly in Seattle? A.—Chiefly at Schwabacher's. Q.—Were you her master? A.—Yes, sir. Q,—For what cruise did she fit out? A.—Sealing in Behring Sea. Q.—The American side? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what month did you fit out? A.—Fitted out in January; fitted out for the Behring Sea. Q.—For what period? A.—About nine months. Q.—When did you sail? A.—In January, I think. Q.—And where did you seal? A.—I sealed on the California coast, Oregon and Washington coast, and from there north. Q.—Did you go to the usual grounds? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Show me where you sealed in Behring Sea on the chart? A.—I sealed entirely around the islands. 20 Q.—You mean north, south, east and west? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How far away from them? A.—The nearest I was to the Islands was 40 miles. Q.—Where did you lower the boats first after going into the sea? A.—It would be a hard matter for me to say; wherever I first saw a seal. Q.—You cannot tell me? A.—No, sir. Q.—No idea? A.—No, sir, I have none; nothing to refresh my memory with. Q.—You cannot tell me where you nut the boats down for 3° the first time? A.—No, sir. Q.—Whether 30 miles from the pass, 60 or 90? A.—No, sir. Q.—What time did you get into the sea? A.—Some time the first part of July. Q.—What time did you leave? A.—I left that year in September. Q—What time? A.—The first part, along the first part of September. Q.—You don't remember the week? A.—No, sir, I don't 4 remember the week. Q.—In 1891 you did not go into the Sea? A.—No, sir, I did not. Q.—And 1892 you did not go into the Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—Where did you go in 1892? A.—In 1892 I went to Copper Island. Q.—When you said 3'ou did not go into the Sea, of course you meant on the American side? A.—I did go into the Sea; I went to Ounalaska, and then turned out of the Sea c0 again; I went to Copper Islands. Q.—But you did not seal on the American side in 1892 at all? A.—No, sir. Q.—Where did you fit out in 1892? A.—In Seattle. Q.—For the same cruise? A.—Yes, sir, for the same cruise. Q.—Same cruise in point of time? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the same people fitted you out? A.—The same people. Q.—What was the name of that firm? A.—Schwabacher. 60 Q.—In 1893? A.—In 1893 I fitted out for the same cruise. Q.—And same waters? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—And 1894? A.—In 1894 I fitted out for a Japanese cruise. Q.—Did you go upon it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where did you go? A.—I went to the Japan coast. Q.—Had you any difficulty in getting a ship in 1894? A.— I owned in (he ship I was going in; I did not have any difficulty. IO 20 40 A.—No, sir, just from Seattle to the name A.—In Seattle. A.—The "Ella Johnson;" SO 60 P. Minei Q.—Do you know the "Henry Dennis?" A.—Yes, sir Q.—You were■ wrecked, weren't you, in that year? A.- '94. Q.—Didn't 3'ou try to get a vessel to take the place of your wrecked vessel? A.—I did get a vessel; I came back to Seattle and fitted out on another cruise and went to Behring Sea. Q.—Same course? Behring Sea. Q.—Where did vou get a vessel? Q.—What was her chartered her. Q.—Did you try to buy? A.—No, sir. Q.—I will just read this to you to refresh your memory. "On the 28th of May at Seattle I met Captain E. P. Miner, master of the schooner "Henry Dennis," which on the same day had arrived from Japan." I am reading from Mr. Alexander's report.' "His vessel having been wreckeel on ■that coast at the time of meeting him, he was endeavoring to charter another vessel, and hoped to be in the Behring Sea by the first of August." I was referring to that when I asked you if you succeeded in getting a vessel? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—When did you start on your chartered vessel? A.—I started about the 4th of July, if I remember. Q.—Then what cruise did you take? A.—I went directly to Ounalaska. Q.—And then where? A.—From there into the Sea sealing. Q.—What time did you reach the Sea? A.—I forget the date I reached Ounalaska, but I reached the sealing ground or began sealing on the 10th of August. Q.—Where did you begin? A.—I began about 35 miles outside of Ounalaska. Q.—Point it out to me, please, on the chart? A.—Latitude about 54.50, and longitude about 167.30. Q.—And how long did you seal there in that vicinity? A. —I sealed the rest of the season in that vicinity, within 70 or 80 miles. . Q.—And came, out of the Sea when? A.—I came out of the Sea, if I remember rightly, about the 15th of September. Q.—Now, Captain, 3'ou told us yesterday, I think, something about the value or cost of vessels for the sealing business being fixed in 1886 and 1887 in San Francisco. Do.you remember stating something to that effect? A.--I remember that; yes, sir. Q.—Could you be precise now in regard to what you meant by that? A.—I meant by that where the vessels are most plenty.and most offered for sale; that I would consider that would be where the market would be fixed. Q.—What vessels were being offered for sale in 1886 and 1887 in San Francisco? A.—I could not recall the ones offered for sale; it was a well known fact that there were vessels for sale. Q.—You cannot tell me any? A.—No, sir. Q.—It was a fact, was it not, that in 1886 or 1887 vessels suitable for sealing advanced in value? A-—I don't know as to that. Q.—When did they advance in value? A.—Well, I have not known of vessels advancing in value on the coast. Q.—What kind of vessels were taken for sealing in 1886 and 1887; were they built especially for sealing or were they coasting schooners? A.—Some were and some were not. Q.—Chiefly? A.—Chiefly. I think, they were vessels built for the business. 560 (E. P. Miner—Cross.) Q,—You would not undertake to swear to that statement? A.—I could not say what proportion they would be. Q.—Can you name a dozen vessels in San Francisco or Victoria that were originally built for the. special purpose of sealing? A.—I think I can. Q.—Well, name them; and for no other purpose? A.— The "Alexander," the "Otter." Q.—And give the years, if 3r0u can. A.—I cannot give the years. Q.—Then go on with the list A.—The "City of San Diego." "San Jose," the- "He'raman," "C. H. White,"—I don't know as I can recollect any more. Q.—How many of those were built before 1886? A.—I couldn't say as to that. Q.—How many were built before 1887? A.—I could not place the date. Q.—How many before 1888? A.—I knew them all before 20 that time, I think. Q.—How man3T of those were built before 1.880? A.—Not but one that I can recollect. Q.—You told us yesterday that the vessel was brought from the eastern coast, did you not, captain? A.—I said I knew of one coming at.that time. Q.—The year 1887s, "Triumph?" A.—No, I think the first one I knew of e;oming was before 1887, I think she came in 1886, the "Pathfinder." 0 Q.—If there was a supply of vessels in San Francisco before 1886 is it not likely they would have sent around to the Eastern coast for a vessel? A.—Not unlikely. Q.—Even if vessels were freelyi offered in the market at San Francisco? A.—Certainly; the3' are doing the same thing to-day." Q.—Tell me why they would send around to the east if there was a good supply at San Francisco? A.—They think they get a better vessel for the same money, or less, I suppose. 4° Q.—Then the value would not be fixed at San Francisco, under those circumstances, would it? \.—Yes, on this coast. Q.—Notwithstanding you can get a cheaper vessel on the eastern coast than on this coast, the price was fixed at San Francisco, you think? A.—I don't suppose the ship would be cheaper after they brought her around; she would be dearer. I should imagine she would cost fuily as much. Q.—Would she not cost more? A.—Not that I know of. Q.—Will you undertake to say that when they were bring- 5o jng these vessels from the east they could get suitable sealing vessels in the home port cheaper or as cheap as the vessels that they brought around from the east? A.—I wouldn't undertake to say that they could get cheaper vessels there. Q.—Will you answer mj' question? Mr. Lansing:—What 3'ear are you talking' about? Sir C. H. Tupper:—1886, or 1887, when these vessels were brought around. (To witness.) Q.—In the years when you 6° know they brought vessels from the east, will you undertake to sa3' that they brought them notwithstanding they could get vessels suitable for the business in San Francisco for a cheaper price? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, what vessels could they get cheaper than the one you had in mind at the time they brought her around, what vessel was on the market? A.—I have no wa3' of telling what the vessels they brought around, cost. (E. P. Miner—Cross. Q.—Do you knew any vessel that was in the market for sale suitable for sealing, when she did come around? A.—'■ There were several, I cannot call them to mind. Q.—Will you swear there were several in the season she was brought around, on the market for sale, suitable for sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You will swear to that positively and distinctly? A. !0 —Yes, sir. Q.—You say you cannot name one of them? A.—No, -sir. Q.—Nor their owners? A-—No, sir. Q.—And what year are you referring to? A.—1886 and 1887. Q.—To two years, 1886 and 1887? What time of the year were these vessels on the market for sale? A.—Any time of year. Q.—Tell me the time? A.—No particular time. . Q.—You cannot fix it? A.—I know in the fall of both 20 years I could have bought vessels in San Francisco. Q.—What month? A.—November, say, and December. Q.—Of what year? A.—1886 and 1887. Q.—How many vessels could you have bought? A.—If I had had the money I could have bought several, I think. Q.—What makes you think that? A.—I heard of their being offered for sale. Q.—How did you hear, had you occasion to look for them? A.—No, sir, I had no occasion. Q.—What vessel had you at the time? A.—The "Pen- .q elope." 0 Q.—In 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And 1887? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was she in San Francisco in November? A.—She was in this port. Q.—And you were with her? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—But you knew that, in San Francisco there were vessels? A.—I made a trip to San Francisco. Q.—When did you make it? A.—I couldn't tell what time; somewhere in the fall. 40 Q—Was it October? A.—No. Q.—Was it in November? A.—November or December. Q.—Were these vessels still on the market in Dcember offering for sale in San Francisco? A.—I talked— Q.—Answer my question. I want to know as a fact whether these vessels were on the market in San Francisco for sale in December when you went there? A.:—Yes, sir, which ever month I went there. Q.—But you do not know what memth? A.—No, sir. Q.—Can you come within a month of the month? A.—I 50 only named two months. Q.—You have named three; you named October, November and December? A.—I did not name October. Q.—You will swear it was either November or December of 1886?' A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you were in the "Penelope"? A.—I had the "Penelope" in my charge. Q.—And you took her into San Francisco? A.—No, sir. Q.—Went alone? A.—Yres, sir. Q.—Left your ship here? A.—Yes, sir. 60 Q.—I understood you were here from the fall and until some time in the spring of 1S87? A.—I was, with the exception of a short trip. Q.—How many weeks were you absent? A.—Probably two weeks. Q.—Will you say you were not absent a month? A.—I was not absent a month. Q.—You are positive as to that? A.—Yes, sir. 36 562 IO (E. P. Miner—Cross.) Q.—You were not down there in December? A.—I dem't know whether it was November or December. Q.—What did you go down for? A.—Just for the trip. Q.—No business? A.—No, business especially. Q.—No business of any character? A.—No, sir. Q.—What owners of ships did you see? A.—I saw a great many, talking to them. Q.—From them you learned of ships being offered for sale? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And no purchasers? A.—No, sir. Q.—Sealing vessels? A.—Vessels that would be suitable for sealing. Q.—How do you know, did you examine any of them? A. —I took their words for it. Q.—Are you positive they mentioned they were suitable for sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where, on the street—conversing on the street? A.— 20 I don't know whether on the street or in saloons. Q.—And you'5§knnot give me the name of one single individual who told you that he had a vessel suitable for sealing on the market without a purchaser? A.—No, sir. Q.—You cannot even guess a name, I suppose? A.—Too many years back to remember that. Q.—You say you were there about two weeks? A.—I think about that time. Q.—Did you report the fact to your owners, or any one interested in the trade here? A.—Not that I know of. 30 Q-—You had no occasion to pay particular attention to the market, had you? A.—No moreHiian being in the business we always converse about such things. Q.—How loqg after that was it that the vessels began to come from the eastern ports? A.—They had already come from the eastern ports. Q.—And were still coming in increasing numbers? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And have continued to come? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What do you call the beginning of the period when 40 sealing took a start—Pelagic sealing, as we call it—ocean sealing—from these ports? A.—I don't know; I started to seal myself— Q.—I do not mean that. When did it take its best start as a commercial enterprise? Are you familiar enough with the business of either port to tell me that? A.—I have been in the business all the time. Q.—Referring to your familiarity with the business, when did it, as a commercial venture and a general enterprise, take its start? A.—Well, I should say it was in its most flourish- 5° ing condition, if that is what is meant, in 1887. Q.—You would put it about 1887 as its most flourishing condition? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—There were more in the business in 1886 than previously, were there not? A.—1 think there were a few more vessels out in 1886 than 1885. Q.—Were there only a few more vessels in the business in 1886 than 1885? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—But in 1887 it took a greater start? A.—Yes, sir. 60 Q*—And vessels suitable for that I suppose brought an increased value by the increased enterprise in 1887? A.—I think a man that was in the business would have been willing to have paid more for a vessel. v Q.—The prices of vessels would naturally increase with the increased interest in the business, would they not? A.— The value of a new vessel—the values would remain the same of a new vessel. Q.—As a matter of fact were not vessels in the coasting business turned into the sealing business? A,—Y'es, sir. 10 20 3Q 40 So 60 (E. P. Miner—Cross.) Q.—Was it not because the sealing business would pay better than the coasting business? A.—Because they had a chance for a larger profit. Q.—And therefore a vessel suitable for sealing was of more value than a vessel suitable for coasting only? A.—I cannot say as to that. Q.—You are unable to give me an opinion on that at all? A.—No, sir. Q.—Y'ou would not like to say? A.—No, sir, I would not like to say that they were. Q.—But there was more scope for a vessel in sealing than in coasting? A.—Y'es, sir, in chance. Q-—That would increase the value of the coaster's property, would it, on the market? A.—It would increase the chance of selling an old vessel. Q.—With what market values are you familiar, those in San Francisco, or those in Victoria, in 1886 and 1887? A. More in San Francisco. Q.—Almost wholly? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And it is of that market that you like to speak with more certainty than the other? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—There are two different markets, are there not; prices differ, construction of vessels, and cost of provisions? A.— I suppose so. Q.—There was a difference in 1886 and 1887, was there not, a greater difference? A.—I' think a greater difference. Q.—There is even a difference to-day, is there not, in prices generally? A.—In certain articles, yes, sir. Q.—What was your first year for outfitting at the port of Victoria again? A.—In 1887. Q.—Who elid your business for you? A.—I did my owu business. Q.—You had no middle men, no agents? A.—No, sir. Q.—Where did you get your supplies? A.—I got the bulk of my supplies, I think from Mr. Earle. Q.—Of Victoria? A.—Yes, sir, I got some from Saunders. Q.—Did yon get any from Seattle? A.—In the way of provisions, I think not. Q.—Will you undertake to say that you did not get a part of your supplies from Seattle? A.—In the way of provisions I will undertake to say so. Q.—But as to anything else, you will not say? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you know the A. B. Hotelling Co., in Seattle? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—Did you deal with them? A.—Nq, sir, it was a liquor house. Q.—You dealt with Swabacher. you told us, a little while ago? A.—That is another vessel entirely. Q.—You have dealt with them? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, did you deal with them in 1887? A.—No, sir. Q.—You are positive? A.—Positive. Q.—Is there anyone else you would deal with in Seattle? A.—There was one I did deal with in Seattle, the Hardy Hall Arms Co. Q.—Did you deal with them in 1887? A.—I did, with the "Penelope." Q.—Can you give us any idea of your bill there? A.—I should say somewhere about $200; I bought some guns. Q.—What was your total cost of outfitting in 1887—the "Penelope"? A.—As to provisions, about $1,200. Q.—What else, where did you get those? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Have you not been all over this? &xm 564 (E. P. Miner—Cross.) Sir C. H. Tupper:—I have not; not those questions. Witness:—As I said before, Mr. Earle. Sir C. H. Tupper:—Does your Honour mean this morning? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Yesterday. I0 Sir C. H. Tupper:—No; I did not go into the outfitting of the "Penelope." (To witness): What was the cost of provisions? A.—About $1,200. Q.—Where did you get them? A.—In Victoria, from Earle, Saunders and different ones. Q.—Who else? A.—I think I got my meats from Good- acre. Q.—You include the meats in the $1,200? A.—When I speak of provisions I mean meats and groceries. Q.—And what were your other expenses? A.—My am- 20 munition bill was about $350. Q.—What did you get in the way of ammunition, how much powder? A.—My powder most all came from Hardy Hall's. Q.—I did not ask where it came from; but how much did you take? A. —Seven or eight kegs; I couldn't tell to a keg. Q.—Are you postive it was not more than eight kegs? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—How many sacks of buckshot? A.—I believe about 30. 30 Q.—How many primers? A.—Ten or twelve thousand. Q.—How many boats had you on that cruise? A.—I had five boats and a stern boat. Q.—I suppose in making your estimate you took into consideration the cruise on which you were to go? A.—Yes, sir. .Q.—It was a nine months' cruise? A.—Eigth or nine months' cruise. Q.—How many shots did you calculate for each boat? A.—From 700 to 1,000. Q.—Is that the ordinary amount fired away by a boat in 40 a season? A.—About that. Q.—And how much would you expect a boat to bring in for 700 or 800 shots? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is going outside of the matter entirely, is it not? Sir C. H. Tupper:—I have a purpose; I won't persiic'long, but I have a purpose in asking the question. Witness:—It depends on who the hunter is, there is such a ,q difference between men in shooting. Q.—Are you positive that you did estimate for 700 shots only in a season? A.—No, I think it more likely I estimated for 1,000. Q.—Are you positive that that supply of powder for the number of men and boats you took, was the usual supply? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You would be surprised to learn that 60,000 rounds of ammunition was usually taken? 60 Mr. Lansing:—For how many sealers? Sir C. H. Tupper:—We are speaking of the "Penelope" now. Witness:—I never took that much. Q.—Y'ou would be surprised to learn that it was taken among sealers? A.—I would be, yes, sir. Q.—Would you say as a matter of fact that that was not the amount for a similar outfit to yours from Victoria for a cruise? A.—I should say it was a larger amount than I ever took; that is all I could say. Q.—On what basis did you calculate that estimate for $1,- 200 worth of provisions? A.—I simply bought what I thought was necessary for the voyage. Q.—What number of men had you? A.—I-think I had 21. Q.—Did you calculate it by the $10 allowance? sir. Q.—That did not enter into your head? A.—No, sir. Q.—So that you bought your provisions wholly regardless of what it would cost a month to deal in them? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In fact you never went on that estimate in outfitting a vessel? A.—I only went on the estimate about what provisions it would take for a certain length of time. Q.—I say, did you ever go on this estimate of so much per month per-man when buying the provisions? A.—No, sir. Q.—I understood you to say yesterday something about your idea of the "Carolena's" sailing qualities. If you were convinced that that vessel was a good sailer and in a safe and thorough repair in 1886 would that alter your opinion as to her value which you gave in your examination yesterday? A.—No, sir, it would not alter my ideas as to value. Q.—So that whether she was a good or a poor sailer made no difference in reaching her value? A.—I think her value was reached in the way she could be used in a certain business. *^.—The sailing qualities had nothing to do with it in your mind? A.—In looking at the vessel it was not a question of sailing qualities, I should think. Q.—Do you think that is answering my question. A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Did you see the "Carolena" when she was afloat? A. No, sir.. Q.—But if you discovered that she was a good sailer, woulel it make any difference in the opinion you gave as to her value? Witness:—Well, I would answer no. Q.—Do you. know any vessel of her size and tonnage that in 1886 was a better sailer, or better suited for sealing, I will put it? A.—I knew nothing of her sailing- qualities; I couldn't judge. Q.—Do you know of any vessel in 1886 in Victoria or in the port of San Francisco, better adapted for sealing? A.— I am not competent to judge. Q.—Have you known any better vessel since of 30 tons? A.—I did not know how good she was; I couldn't tell. Q.—If 3'ou had been able to compare that vessel with the craft 3rou have known in actual work, 3'ou opinion might be different with regard to her value? A —Y'es, sir. Q.—You will not undertake to swear that that vessd v. as not suitable for sealing purposes? A.—No, sir. Q.--You saw her only in 1889? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You never saw her before? A.—No, sir. Q.—She was in a very bad condition, was she not? A.— As regards hull not very bad, but as regards rigging, very bad. Q.—Has the climate of Ounalaska a good effect on a ves sel lying there without repair for a few years? A.—No, better than any other. Q.—Is it not worse, do you know anything about the effect of the climate of that region on a vessel? A.—The climate is very damp. rii'if n-rn saaa I IllltJIff in io 20 30 40 50 60 566 (E. P. Miner—Cross.) Q.—So far as affecting the vessel, there is one climate where a vessel will stand out longer than another; you will admit that? A.—No, sir. Q.—The climate, then, has nothing to do with it, in regird to its effect on a vessel. A.—Not where they are left openly exposed in a climate. Q.—The same in any part of the world? A.—I should say one climate is about as bad as another. Q.—All would have a bad effect, I suppose, on a vessel left without care? A.^Yes, sir. Q.—Did the vessel show any sign of any attention being paid to it? A.—None at all. Q.—In a state of neglect? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How was she lying? A.—She was lying on the beach, that is called a beach, a flat bank—the water left it, no tide. Q.—On one side? A.—She wasn't to the beach. Q.—On what side was she lying? ^A.—When I saw her she was lying on her port side. Q.—How much exposed? A.—Entirely exposed, you could walk around her. Q.—You understood she had been there for some years I suppose? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The water would come around her at high tide, I suppose? A.— It would. Q.—Were you there at high tide? A.—I was there both high and low. Q.—How high did the water come up? A.—I should say there was about three feet of water, not to exceed three feet. Q.—Not enough to float her? A.—No, sir. Q.—Now did you on these occasions when you were master of a vessel hunt seals yourself all the time? A.—Not as much as hunters. Q.—Give me an idea in general. A.—In fair weather when the vessel didn't have to be looked after, a good fair day and no fear of losing the boats, I used to go out and hunt. Q.—You were a pretty good shot? A.—I had pretty good success. Q.—How many would you miss? A.—I never kept account of my misses. Q.—Cannot give me the proportion of your misses, the percentage? A.—Well, my misses depend on how the shots were taken. Q.—I do not care how they were taken, as a rule what percentage would you lose that you shot at? A.—-I think probably eight or ten per cent. Q.—Would you swevar to that? A.—I am speaking now as my general opinion; I have never kept any record. Q.—But you will not say podtively that you lost eight per cent, of those you shot? A.—No man could say unless he kept figures. Q.—I want to ask you as a matter of fact whether you have not said, in the town of Victoria, on more than one occasion, that you did not lose more than two per cent of those you shot. A.—I never remember having said it. Q.—Will you say positively that you have not on several occasions claimed, in the city of Victoria, that you did not lose more than two per cent, of those you shot? A.—I never have claimed that. Q.—Is it possible yon have made that claim? A.—I don't think it is possible. 567 (E. P. Aliner—Cross.) Q.—You are not sure are you captain? A.—It can be stated in so many different ways. You might say of what seal I had shot and lost, and what I had shot at altogether, not Knowing whether they were killed or not. Q.—I will put the question again? Are you sure that you have not said in Victoria that you lost no more than two per cent, of the seals you shot at? IO Mr. Dickinson:—May it please your Honours, that question is never asked except as an impeaching question, and he has to name the person to whom he said it. The fact that some boast was made, that when not under oath the witness has said something on a matter not materially at issue, is not competent on cross-examination, unless they fix the time and place. It is only material to ask such questions when it is proposed to impeach the witness. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do 20 you claim, Sir Charles, that a question of that sort is very material? It seems to me hardly a point on which you can contradict him. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I hope to bring it much nearer the case in the end; but it is impossible for me to disclose from time to time the exact bearing of questions. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Of course you cannot contradict it, unless you show the precise time and place. I think a cross-examiner sometimes asks a ques- •' tion, the answer to which may not be competent to him. It is not every question you ask you can get an answer to that you can contradict. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I am aware of that, and I am not far apart from my learned friend. I am willing to suffer the consequences of the way I may put a question. To witness: Captain, you are not a braggart; I suppose you are not in the habit of going around and talking through 40 your hat about sealing? A.—I don't know. Q.—You are not in the habit of blowing your horn too much? Mr. Dickinson: stand? 60 -Sir Charles, who will swear to that on the Sir C. H. Tupper:—I think the Captain is not that style of man, and I am willing to say so. His modesty has been most charming I think in regard to his shooting. To witness:—Let me know what you decide to say to that question, whether as a matter of fact you will deny that you have in Victoria on several occasions claimed that you lost no more than two per cent, of the seals you shot at? A.—I wouldn't want to deny it, because it might have been put in a different way from what I take it now. Q.—Now, Captain, I want to ask you another question. I have been speaking, and you have been answering in reference to seals you shot at. Now, of seals you actually shot, did you as a matter of fact lose many? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Now, do you call him as one of 3'our six experts? Sir C. H. Tupper:—I am cross-examining him, and taking advantage of any candour he may exhibit in the box. Mr. Dickinson:—I passed him on the>se questions. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I think I am entitled to get what I can from this witness. It may seem a perilous attempt on my 568 io 20 30 40 SO 60 (Discussion.) part, but I think the Captain is going to be quite candid and assist both counsel and the court. • The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you call him: as one of your experts? . Sir. C. H. Tupper:—I have not called this witness, he is not mine. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Should you examine him as one of your experts? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Of course I must defer to the court. I submit that question in cross-examination, and 1 propose to ask him that if I am permitted. Mr. Peters:—We submit to the Commissioners, that at all events according to the practice in our courts, when the witness is put on the stand by one side, the other side can cross- examine that witness on any question material to the case, whether opened in a direct examination or not. The Commissioner on the part of the United -States:—Do you not see, Mr. Peters,that whatever may be the rule of your courts, if 30U attempt to apply it here you thus avoid the rule we have laid down that only six witnesses shall be examined on a side on that question. I can say nothing further about it. I have given you my intimation of what I deem this cross-examination would amount to. Mr. Dickinson:—I sit at the feet of my learned friend, the senior counsel of Great Britain, as to the practice on this side of the* line; but I have had the honor to appear in some of the courts, and I do not understand, and I did not then learn, that the rule was as he states it. I have understooa that a witness put on the stand in a case may be examined by the other side as to the whole case, but not cross-examined. If examined on anything which is outside of the direct examination, counsel makes him his own wtness. I may not have stated the rule correctly, as I may have forgotten and misunderstood it; but I understood that to be the rule on this side as well as in England. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I am looking at the matter practically. This witness on cross-examination is asked for the first time a question as to which we have limited the number of witnesses. If he is examined upon that question, the other side may reexamine him, and he stands as a witness. If this can be done under the cover of cross-examination, every witness- produced here may be examined on this question without limit, and the rule made by the Commissioners is avoided. I will not say evaded, because that may be considered an unsuitable word, but avoided. I can say nothing more about it. So far as I am concerned, and in the absence of an opportunity to confer with my learned associate, I must leave this to the judgment and good sense of the counsel. Sir C. H. Tupper:—With that appeal, if your Honour will permit me, I am perfectly willing to settle this on the basis on which I approached the question. I have a distinct recollection, which can be corrected by reference to the notes, of this feature of the examination being presented by my learned friend, Mr. Dickinson. I made a note to cross-examine on, and approached it with that intention. If the notes do not bear me out, and I have erred, I am certainly willing to defer to the court, and avoid for the moment going into this subject in this way; but I certainly claim the right that if the notes show as I am certain they will, that my learned friend went into this feature of the case, I claim the right to cross- examine fully on the subject, and nothing that his Honour, 30 SG9 (Discussion.) the Commissioner on the part of the United States has said, is inconsistent with that under those circumstances. I therefore ask that the notes should be looked up, as it is a subject of importance, and, if the notes show that he was examined, I think I will be permitted to cross-examine him. Mr. Dickinson:—It was yesterday afternoon when this question came up, and pending the decision of the Commis- 10 sioners on this question, I think they will remember I specially said that I waived that line of examination. Sir C. H. Tupper:—There are five or six answers down on my notes, before we reached that stage. I recollect the occasion to which my learned friend refers; but I again say that if these answers are there in evidence, every reason of justice would indicate that there should be a full cross-examination upon them, and I think my learned friend will agree with me, if that be so. 20 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Last night, the witness answered some questions bearing upon the matter, and we determined what we would do, namely, let it stand over till morning. After the announcement made this morning by my learned associate, nothing was said by us specifically relating to that matter. We did not determine the bearing of our decision this morning upon the testimony that took place last night. Might this not be a fair solution of it ? If the evidence referred to last night bears 'upon the general question that we are considering, might it not be reasonable that Sir Charles should cross-examine upon it, and, of course, Mr. Dickinson re-examine upon that, and if necessary that could be a seventh witness under that view. We might hereafter determine whether this witness shall be treated as one of the witnesses on the part of Great Britain or not; but if it wants to make use of a witness called by the other side its success might not be very great, and we might conclude hereafter that the witness had been adopted as one of the number of witnesses permitted to be called by that side. We might get over it in that way for the present, and in the end there might not be any serious question at all. If the evidence last night when looked at shows that the matter was gone into by Mr. Dickinson, and it still stands in the notes, of course it would be open in the ordinary way to cross-examination, unless Mr. Dickinson asks that it be stricken out. Mr. Dickinson:—The questions were preliminary, leading up to this when the question arose, and I would prefer to have those preliminary questions stricken out; because, after 5° the ruling of the court this morning, we would prefer to select the six witnesses before we would be bound by the ones we put on. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I quite agree, if that be acceptable to the Comfnissioners, that the examination of this witness so far as regards hunting the seal and sea] life, be stricken out. I quite agree to stop my examination; but I want to call my learned friend's attention to the fact that he went on in regard to the scent of the seal, the wildness of the seal, and 60 all those questions of natural history, and how a seal was approached—a vast amount of examintion, it seems to me to be on the same footing exactly as the risk of losing seals in shooting. Mr. Dickinson:—Let me refresh my learned friend's memory and the memory of the Commissioners on this point. The questions proposed to be put here relate to the personal experience of this witness as to the number of seals he lost 40 576 io 20 (Discussion.) when shooting. Y'our Honours will remember the' testimony that has been given that when too 'far distant from the seals to be sure of getting them the witness said he did not shoot at all. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Was not there something said like this: "Is that the reason why you proved such a good shot?" Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, your Honour, but the question as to the number of seals that are shot by this witness that, he gets was abandoned incidentally on the question coming up; but the fact that he did not shoot was brought out, and the question is in here. As to what the conditions are under which he would shoot or would not shoot, that question was, if the seal is too far distant, so that yot see there is no chance of getting him you do not shoot at all. There I left it. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I suppose the reason for not shooting when so far away is the probability of not getting them? Mr. Dickinson:—That is it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—There was no question raised as to the cross-examination down to the last question Sir Charles Tupper asked, that is to say, as to the number of seals the witness shot out of those he fired 30 at. Mr. Dickinson:—The number of seals he gets that he fired at. The Commissioner on the part of the United States: No. the number he shoots that he fires at, growing out of the question whether he was a good shot. There is no objection to the cross-examination so far. Mr. Dickinson:—But I distinctly abandoned going into that 4° question. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—If it is understood all around that this question upon which the Commissioners ruled is not to be opened up on cross examination, unless it is opened up on the direct examination, and Mr. Dickinson strikes out of the notes those few questions which raised the discusion last night, does not that dispose of the matter for the present? 50 Sir C. H. Tupper:—May I ask in all earnestness how are we to distinguish that particular question of the examination of my learned friend from those which follow all for the same purpose? My learned friend was exceedingly candid yesterday. He announced before going into this, his object, and he explained that he proposed to show before this investigation was over that the Sea might be litevally teeming with seals, yet it by no means followed that because seals were there and seen in great numbers a vessel would catch one solitary seal, and following along to demonstrate that he 60 asked this question, it was only one of a dozen or two to show ihe risks, the venturesome character of the whole business, that it was a speculation. After that he goes on to show that those seals are very wary, that on the approach of man they disappear, that they can scent the vessel and the hunters, and disappear. I fail to understand how a part of this examination of this witness relative to seal life is to stand and the other parts excluded. I am willing to take "either line, that is, to cross-examine fully on the subject generally, 20 30 40 50 Mr. Dickinson:—B or not to cross-examine, and if I do not cross-examine, I shall expect that all this evidence after we reach that point about the shooting will drop out—of course the evidence of this witness as to the habits of the seals. Mr. Peters:—I would not have taken the objection yesterday had it not been that we were stopped giving that class of evidence, and perhaps rightly so. The Commissioners 10 now say that on that point they will hear a certain amount of evidence, and to that restriction I have no objection. I have a number of witneses here that I propose to examine on this point if my objection is not sustained. It cannot do any great harm whether we get it from this witness, who seems to be a man of experience, or from other witnesses. We would have examined some of our own previous witnesses on this point, and I am not quite sure whether they are obtainable to appear again. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It does not make any particular difference in the mere examination of this witness, but it does make a great difference whether we are to go on with the understanding that a witness called by either party may be examined under color of cross-examination on this point, and then re-examined by the other side on the same point. Mr. Peters:—Y'ou can judge fairly what will happen from what has happened. If I mistake not, this is the first witness we have examined on this point. Sir C. H. Tupper:—May I propose that we adjourn this cross-examination? It is a most important subject in the opinion, apparently, of both sides, and while we are most anxious to be fair to any suggestion from the Bench, I am sure the Commissioners will understand that we are embar- assed by a sense of what we think necessary to be done in connection with the case in our hands. It is possible that by conference and looking at these notes we shall agree as to what shall go out. But, standing here now, I am individually embarassed in regard to the part to be eliminated. I refer to the question of seal life, and to go into that and do it justice I want to follow very closely what I understood to be the examination. Perhaps after a conference we could agree to strike out a large number of questions of this character, and, if so, my examination might stop here altogether. On the other hand, T may ask the Court to permit me to go fully into it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I see no objection to examination on seal ljf'e, except on the question as to what proportion of seals which are shot are lost. witness ? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—By this witness. Sir C. H. Tupper:—That is one of the most important parts of seal life as affects pelagic sealing. 6o The Commissioner on the part of the f'nited States:—Can you not prove it by your own witness? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Surely we are not debarred from getting it from a hostile witness? The. Commissioner on the part of the United States;—Is that the only point you want to cross-examine on? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Sea 572 (Discussion.) The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That, is a large question. Sir C. H. Tupper:—And pelagic sealing. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—If you feel very strongly upon it it is open for you to say that this may be adduced by this witness. Ordinarily one does not go into'the opposite camp to prove his case, but it is for yourself to say. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I quite understand the risk that attaches to putting these questions. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The rule about cross-examination with which I have been familiar in most of the courts, is that cross-examination is not ordinarily confined to matters that are gone into on direct examination. The defendant, for instance, in most of our courts —although the rule is not uniform—is not allowed by a cross-examination of a witness on the plaintiffs side, to prove matters the affirmative of which is upon him by the issue that he has raised on his pleadings. So far as a mere matter of traverse I think the affirmative is on the plaintiff and he cannot ordinarily cross-examine to prove it. I do not know whether that is the rule of the United States courts or not. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The rule with us is a little more strict, but I suppose that here on account of the inconvenience of getting witnesses back we would not be so strict. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Ordinarily you are not allowed by cross-examination to go into matters the affirmative of which is incumbent upon the plaintiff. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The only queston as I understand bears upon the proportion of seals actually shot by him and lost. Y'ou say, Sir Charles, you want to cross-examine on the general question of pelagic sealing. There is a very broad field in that. ' Sir C. H. Tupper:—I admit that. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I see the propriety of your suggestion to suspend the termination of the matter until you examine the notes and confer with counsel on the other side. That seems to be a proper suggestion. Can you, in your cross-examination, pass from this subject now and leave it in abeyance? Sir C. H. Tupper:—I am at the end of my general cross- evamination, and the only notes I have are on questions suggested by my learned friend's examination as to seal hunting and seal life. Perhaps this witness might stand down until we confer together and see if we cannot agree. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I suppose the notes would settle a good deal of what has been discussed. The Commissioner on the part of the I'nited States:—Our general conclusion that we announced this morning was with a view of restricting the examination into this inquiry. The rule we laid down did not cover the case of the cros-sexam- ination, although the spirit of it might very well apply to the case of cross-examining a witness upon the matter. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I quite agree and it was for that reason that we agreed to drop everything in relation to it. (E. C. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Whether you cross-examine this witness on the matter would strictly depend on the point you have raised as to whether it was gone into last night and whether the direct examination would assist Mr. Dickinson on his side. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I quite understand that. io The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Hereafter you could not cross-examine a witness on matters not gone into by his direct examination without that witness being accounted a witness on your side. In this e*ase you cannot do it unless it appears strictly to arise out of the direct examination of Mr. Dickinson. Sir C. H. Tupper :- The Commissioner on the.part of the United States:—My learned associate and I agree exactly on the matter. The 20 exmination of the notes may dispose of the trouble. Edgar Crow Baker was called as a witness on the part of the United States and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Dickinson. Q.—Mr. Baker, how long have you lived 30 about? A.—Since the 10th of April, '74. Q.—Are you secretary of what is called the Pilot Board? A.—I am secretary of the Victoria and Esquimalt Pilot Authority. Q.—How long have you been so? A.—19 years, I should think. Q-—Then you were in 1883, 1884, 1885 and 1886? A.— Yes, certainly. Q.—Does that association own pilot boats? A.—No. Q.—Did it own pilot boats in 1880? A.—I think not. I 40 think there was one occasion upon which I was authorized by the Pilot Commissioners to purchase a pilot vessel, put her in my name in trust for certain of the pilots, who at that time were compelled to have the registration of a certain tonnage for a license pilot, and for that purpose only. Q.—What was that boat? A.—The "Carolena." Q.—When was it that they owned her? A.—I should think as far back as 1877. Q.—And they owned her in 188-4 and 1885? A.—That is more than I can tell. My memory does not serve me. - I do 5° remember distinctly purchasing the vessel, and I happen to know the date upon which I purchased her and what I gave for her. But when she was disposed of or at what figure I know nothing about her. Q.—I am not asking these particulars at all, Mr; Baker. That may be arrived at in some other way. But you did dispose of the "Carolena." did you? A.—Sold her? Q.—Yes; as trustee for the Pilot Board? A.—Yes, upon the purchasing of a larger vesse" 60 Mr. Peters:—There will be no cross-examination The examination of the witness closed. William Munsie, already sworn and examined, was recalled as a witness for the United States. Direct examination by Mr. Dickinson; ====H§=i Mil! io 20 574 (William Munsie—Recalled.) Q.—Mr. Munsie, do you know a man by the name of Sere- ault—Michael Sereault? A.—Yes. Q.—With some Indian blood in him? A.—I do not know that he has. Q.—Does he keep an hotel or a tavern or an inn at Clayoquot? A.—He keeps an hotel at Alberni. Q.—Upon the Vancouver coast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Is that near Clayoquot? A.—Yes. Q.—Where is this man? A.—He is in town, I believe. Q.—Is he here now? A.—Yes. Q-—Whereabouts is he? A.—I cannot tell you where he is now. Q.—Where did you last see him? A.—I saw him in my house. Q.—When? A.—This morning. Q.—Did he stay at your house last night? A.—He did. Q-—Do you know that we had a subpoena out for him? A.—I did not. Q-—You took him in a hack, I think, last night? A.— Yes. Q.—What time of the night? A.—About the time the "Tees" left for the coast. Q.—You were down at the "Tees," I think? A.—Yes. Q.—At what time e>f the night? A.—I presume 10 o'clock. Q.—Did you have this man with you? A.—He was there. 0-—Down there? A.—Y'es. Q.—What did you take him there for? A.—I did not take 30 him there. Q.—Down at the "Tees," did not you take him in a carriage there? A.—I did not. Q.—You telegrapheel this man to come down, did you not? A.—I did. Q.—You swear that you did not know we were after him with a subpoena? A.—I did not. Q.—You did not take him to the boat to send him back to the coast? A.—No; Captain Roberts took him to the boat to sign some cheques. 4° Q.—What hour of the morning was this? A.—It was last night. Q.—You were with him at the boat, were 3'ou? A.—Capt. Irving and I went down to the boat together, and he was there. He was verv ill, and I took him to the house. Q.—Cannot you give me the hour? A.—About 10 o'clock. Q.—Y'ou were not there as late as 1 o'clock this morning? A.—I was not. Q.—Does not the boat sail at 10 o'clock? A.—I do not know what time she sailed. I did not wait until the time she sailed; I left. Q.—Will you swear you were not there as late as midnight? A.—I will. Captain Irving, Captain Roberts and myself were there. Q.—Where did you take him in a carriage? A.—I took him to my house. Q._Before or after the boat left? A.—Before the boat left; about 10 o'clock. Q.—Now when you were down at the boat—you know the 60 man who serves processes for the United States? A.—That serves processes? Q.—Yes? A.—I do not know him; I do not know any man that is in your employ. Q.—Will you produce this man Sereault in court? A.— If you have a summons for him I presume you could produce him. Q.—Will yon ke'e*p him at your house until we can subpoena him? A.—I do not know if he is there now. So 10 20 30 40 SO 60 (William Munsie?—Recalled.) Q.—Y'ou have not the remotest idea? A.—He may be or *he may not. Q.—You know he did not go on the "Tees" last night? A.—He did not. Q.—Will you produce him? A.—Y'es, I will, or rather I will endeavor to. Cross-examination by Mr. Peters. Q.—You were asked about this man Sereault, he lives at Alberni, does he? A.—Yes. Q.—And you telegraphed him to come down? A.—I did. Q.—And he came down here when? A.—Yesterday af- i ernoon some time, so I understand. Q.—I believe, as a matter of fact, you have him subpoenaed as a witness? A.—Yes. Q.—And he will be here? A.—Yes. Q.—And you always intended he should be? A.—I intended he should be; he is subpoenaed. Q.—Last night it appears the man had "come on his journey and was not well? A.—He had a severe cold which settled in his chest and it appears he had been drinking a little and I asked him to come to my house. I took him to the house and he was very ill this morning when I left, and could not eat any breakfast. Q.—And you do not know whether he is there or not now? A.—I left him there; I do not know if he is there now. Q.—He came yesterday afternoon in the Tees? A.—No, he came overland; he came over the mountains. Q.—What did you go down to the vessel for? A.—I usually go down before the Tees goes out to the coast, having interests on the West Coast. Q.—Does she ever go without your going down? A.— Never. Q.—There is nothing unusual in your going down there? A.—Nothing whatever. Q.—This man, it appears, had some cheques to sign? A.— He had for Captain Roberts. Q.—Who is Captain Roberts? A.—Captain of the Tees. Q.—Did you go down with a man? A.—Captain Roberts and I met him on the street and we went down togethe Q.—You were going down with Captain Roberts? A.— Yea Q.—And you actually drove up from there? A.—Yes. ■ Mr. Peters:—That was a great sin, it appears to me. Re-examination b'y Mr. Dickinson. Q.—We will see about that. Did you go into a place to find him? A.—I did not. Q.—Did you have a carriage when you found him? A.—No. Q.—You sent for a carriage and took him to the boat? A.—No, I did not. Q-—Did you take him in a carriage to the boat? A.—No. Q.-—How did you come to get a carriage to go home? A.—Well, it was quite a ways to walk and he was very ill. Q.—He had a room at the Queen's Heitel? A.—I believe he bad. Q.—And you went by the hotel, did vou not? A.—No, Captain McLean and he were drinking and I preferred to keep him away from him and took him home. Q.—Captain McLean knew him, didn't he? A.—I presume so. Q.—By Mr. Peters:—That is Captain Alexander McLean? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You did not like him to be in his company-; you thought it was bad? A.—Y'es. 576 1 11 iltlllll II Ii lllli IS ■ II If* -■ , I'll u, 11 10 (William Munsie—Recalled.) By Mr. Dickinson:—You say that McLean and he were drinking together? You heard the man was in this place * and Captain McLean was there, was he not? A.—He told me so himself that he had been drinking with Captain McLean. Q.—Did Captain McLean tell you that he had been requested by us to keep an eye on the man until we would get a subpoena for him? A.—He did not. Q.—But he was in there with him in this place where you found Sereault? A.—I did not find him there. Q.—Who did? A.—Captain Roberts. - Q.—Did not you go in there? A.—No. Q.—Where were you—did you stay outside? A.—I was walking up Yates street. Q.—Did you have a carriage? A.—No. Q.—How did Captain Roberts know where you were? 20 A.—Captain Roberts was looking the street together. or him; we walked up A.—Captain Roberts 30 40 So 60 Q.—You were looking for him? was to sign these cheques. Captain Roberts was in the saloon and he and Captain McLean were in there, and he came out. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—You must not do anything to Interfere with any person who is wanted here. The Witness:—I quite understand. I telegraphed for him and I supposed he would come. Mr. Peters:—Sereault is our witness. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I understand, but still— Mr. Peters:—This witness has done nothing wrong. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It is merely precautionary; a general observation. Mr. Peters:—He finds that this witness is in company with Captain Alexander McLean drinking, he thinks that he is not good, and he takes him away from him, and I consider it was a meritorious act. Further examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—You had not seen him before, although you telegraphed him to come and see you? A.—I had not seen him. Q.—When 3'ou first saw him when he came with Captain Roberts had he been served with a subpoena in this case? A.—He had not. Q.—When was he served with a subpoena? A.—I believe this morning. Q.—You did not know that the United States was after the witness last night, did you? A.—No, I did not. Q.—I want to ask you another question, if you please? Do you know Patrick Hickey? A.—I do. Q.—Have you seen him in the last three days? A.—I do not know that I have. Q._Well, well, can you not say better than that, Mr. Munsie? a.—No, I would not say that I have seen him in the past three days. q.—Would you say that you had not? A.—No, I would not say that I had not. Q—Did you have a talk with him about the United States having a subpoena for him? A.—I had not. Q.—Did 3'ou ask him to go away? A.—No, I did not. Q.—Do you know where he is? A.—I do not. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you intend to proceed further now or wait until the-'exami- nation of the last witness is complete? Mr. Dickinson:—I would prefer to wait until my learned friends complete the examination of the last witness. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Very well. Mr. Dickinson:—I desire iu connection with the proof already put in to put in a certified copy of the bill of sale of the "San Diego" to Bechtel, as recorded in the collector of customs' office in San Francisco, together with Mr. Bechtel's affidavit filed at the time, a certified cop3r of which we have. Mr. Peters:—My objection to the other documents put in by my learned friend applies equally to this. My objection is that the affidavit cannot be put in as evidence against us in this particular matter. The facts can be proved outside of the affidavit. I presume that in the affidavit it says that he is an American citizen. That is a question of law aris ing out of certain facts which can be proved before the Court, so that the Court may be in a position to judge whether he was an American citizen or not. Although I acknowledge the fact thM the registration of the ship, as contradistinguished from a mere statement, yet at the same time the affidavit is put in as a statement, and it combines a question of law arising out of certain facts. He may be all wrong in his law. He may think he was an American citizen when he was not, and therefore I object to that class of evidence being put in. Mr. Dickinson:—I suppose it will go in under the same ruling. We offer it further as impeaching the testimony of J. A. Bechtel, a witness called for Great Britain in this case. Mr. Peters:—On what grounds do you -impeach it? Mr. Dickinson:—Because I asked him a question as to what he did at San Francisco, and he said he did not do this. Mr. Peters:—I think he said he did not remember. The Commissioner on the part of Ihe United States:—My learned associate and I agreed that this should go in the same as the others, all rights being reserved. Mr. Dickinson then read the affidavit referred to, and at the conclusion of reaeling he said: The date 1896 here is evidently a clerical mistake, but it will be rectified. Mr. Peters:—We presume that is a mistake. Mr. Dickinson:—Instead of 1896 it should be 1890, as shown hy the bill of sale. Attached to this is the affidavit of the master that he is a citizen of the United States. These are to go into the appendix-and not into the notes- 37 578 Documents received and marked Exhibit 4, U. S., Claim No. 1. Mr. Peters:—We fake the same objection to the bill of sale as well as to the affidavit. Mr. Dickinson:—That is understood. The Commissioners then took a recess. io 20 30 40 So 60 The Commissioners resumed their seats at 2:15-o'clock. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—My learned associate has asked me to make an announcement on behalf of the Commissioners with reference to the cross-examination under discussion this morning. On going through the notes we find that the state of the record appears to be entirely clear, and I will read those parts only which touch on this precise matter, I shall read all of them so far as we have been able to discover them. Commencing on the 18th galley the following took place as reported: "Q.—Is there any large proportion of seals lost after being shot when they are awake? A.—Yes, sir, of awake seals a large proportion are lost? "Q.—Why is that? A.—Because they are standing up in the water and shot from the front looking at you. They fall on their back then, and I understand that the air comes out of their body and they sink tail first. "Q.—And go out of sight and are lost? A.—Yes. "Q.—They don't come up again? A.—I never knew of one to come up; a dead seal will sink like a stone. "Q.—Y'ou never knew of one to come up? A.—I always understood it that way. When the wind is out of them they go down like a stone, but if they are shot from the back they float quite a while. "Q.—And they are shot from the back when asleep? A.— Yes, sir. "Q.—When you approach them as they awake they usually are fronting you? A.—Yes, because most of the time if they know you are about they tr3' to look at you. "Q.—Now, Captain Miner, out of a body of seals awake, what proportion of them that are killed are lost? A.—It depends a great deal on the man who- shoots them. "Q.—Do' you shoot them at some distance when they are awake? A.—If you shoot them at a long distance, I think fully half would be lost. "Q.—Fully half? A.—Yes, sir, that is when we kill at a long distance." Then comes a question intended to lead up to a further enquiry of this character: "Q.—You, yourself, I think, are a pretty crack shot? A.— Yes, I have always shot some seals. "Q.—Well, it is not immeidest for you to say, if you have the reputation of being a first-class shot, have you? A.— Yes, sir." And then comes the objection of Mr. Peters: "Mr. Peters:—If we are going into the question as how many seals are lost by sinking after being shot, we will enter into a rather broad inquiry." That is the precise question which was before the Tribunal at Paris- IO 579 (E. P. Miner—Recalled—Cross.) That makes two things perfectly apparent, one thing is that the question we have been considering is perfectly plain. It is not at all involved in the question of pelagic sealing but it relates simply and solely to the precise objection made by Mr. Peters. That is what the Commissioners ruled and that is what we have reference to. Of course it does not follow from that that as the case progresses there may not be other topics as to which the Commissioners may not be inclined to limit the testimony. It also makes clear that if this question is allowed to stand in the record it would entitle Sir Charles Tupper to cross-examine with reference to the subject matter under discussion at the time the cross-examination stopped. It is not clear to the Commissioners whether or not under all the circumstances this should stand in the record and the Commissioners in the first place leave it to the counsel to determine by agreement among themselves whether or not this shall stand in the record or go out. I refer now 20 to the portions I have read to the question: "You yourself are a pretty crack shot." That we see no occasion for striking out but believe it should remain in order to make sensible the objection which Mr. Peters at once made*. If Counsel, under the circumstances, are agreed that it should be stricken out they will direct the stenographer to take out the portion I have read. In view of the fact that counsel have said that they wfuld group their testimony upon this topic at a future time and in some other case, it occurred to us, if counsel preferred, to 30 strike the whole matter out of the record. Sir C. H. Tupper:—As to what may be agreed,, upon, of course, I make no statement at present, but in deference to the observations that have been made from the Bench both before adjournment and since, I shall not cross-examine this witness on the subject we are discussing. I hope I may without offence say, with particular reference to the observations that have just been made, we do not altogether agree that the parts read from the direct examination are the only 40 parts that deal with this question. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I remarked that is all we found. Sir C. H. Tupper:— For instance, later on he was asked about how many seals were lost of those he shot. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We did not find it. 5° Sir C. H. Tupper:—No, Your Honour, and it will not be necessary to discuss it now. I ask the permission of the Commission to ask the witness a couple of questions which were on my notes this morninig but which I had forgotten to ask. Cross-examinatiem continued:—Q.—Capt. Miner, you outfitted the "Henry Dennis" in 1893 and 1894? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Had you Frank McKenna as your cook? A.—Yes, in 1894. 60 Q.—Who was your cook in 1893? A.—That I cannot call to mind. Q.—Was it not Frank-McKenna? A.—I do not think so but I don't remember. Q.—You will not be certain about that? A.—I will not be certain. Q.—Y'ou dealt with Schwabacker Brothers, of Seattle, in those years? A.—Yes, sir. 10 20 3Q 5 So (E. P. Miner—Recalled—Cross.) Q.—How many men had you on these occasions on your ships? A.—On both voyages I believe I had 25 men. Q.—And for ihe usual cruise? A.—And for the usual cruise. Q.—Schwabacker Bros, supplied the provisions for the Henry Dennis in 1893 and 1894? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now captain can you tell me what 3'our provisions bill amounted to in 1893? A.—In the neighborhood of $1,600. Q.—Are you speaking positivety in regard to that? A.— .Yes, sir. Q.—When you undertake to say positively that it was not in the neighborhood of .$27.40? A.—Not for provisions, sir. Q.—Will you undertake to say that it. was not in the neighborhood of $2,700? A.—Y'es,'sir. Q.—Positivety? A.—I positively say it was not. Q.—Without any reservation? A.—Yes, siri Q.—What was your provision bill in i894 for the "Henry Dennis?" A.— In the neighborhood of $1,700. Q.—Will you undertake to say positively that it was not in the neighborhood of $1,930? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—Positively? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that you did not buy that amount of provisions in 1894 from Schwabacker Bros? A. —No. sir, not for the "Dennis." Q.—Did you buy that amount for any other purpose? A.— I bought no other except for the "Dennis." Q.—No other account? A.—No, sir. Q.—And you undertake to say positively that the amount was not in the neighborhood of $1,940? A.—In-my recollection it was between $1,700 and $1,800. Q.—Will you say that it was not $1,800? A.—Yes, sir, I will say that. Q.—You are certain that it did not exceed $1,800? A.— Yres, sir. Q.—But it might have been $S00? A.—No, sir. Q.—Might it not have been $.1,850? A.—No, sir. Q.—You are positive of that? A.—Positive of that. Q.—Y'ou sa3' that positively? A.—Positively. Q.—In 1883 what was the limit you gave? A.—About $1,600. Q.—Y'ou are absolutely certain? A.—Yes. Q.—It is not possible it exceeded $1,600? A.—No, sir. Q.—Wh3r do vou think that for the same ship and the same crew the amount might have been $200 more in 1894 than it was in 1893? A.—I probably had a little extra provisions. Q.—Why would you have a little extra in 1894? A.— Something that I thought would be worth while to take making the outfit a little better. Q.—Have you an3r definite reason? A.—Excepting that. Q.—As a matter of fact what do 3rou think? A.—I don't think they were as a rule. Q.—Were the37 am' dearer? A.—No, sir, I don't think they were any dearer. Q.—You can give me no other reason for supposing 3'our provision bill was higher in 1894 than in 1893 than the reason 60 y°n have given me? A.—No other reason. Q.—Will 3'ou state positively that 3'our provision bill was dearer in 1894 for the Henry Dennis than it was in 1893? A. —I had a little more provisions and mj bill was a little larger. Q.—You are positive as to that? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Absolutely? A.—Ye*s, sir. Q.—Y'ou cannot be mistaken? A.—No. sir. 40 SO Re-direct examination bv Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Your estimate of $8 and $10 that you have made on the fitting out as to which you have been cross-examined; on 3'our return from the trips did it turn out that your estimate had been correct? A.—Most alwa3rs my estimate was about the same. Q.—Did it turn out on 3'our return that you were that you had a surplus? I always had a surplus. Q.—Coming into port? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was the tonnage of the Dennis? A.—96 tons and a fraction. Q.—How man3' men did she carry? A.—25. Q.—White men? A.—White men, yes. Q.—You had the same number in 1893 and 1894? A.—If ,0 I remember rightly, just the same. Re-cross-examination by Sir C. H. Tupper. Q.—This surplus of goods was, I take it, probably of little value after nine months' cruise? A.—Not of much value. Q.—-Do you remember on a trip filling up with stores at Shumagin Island after fitting up? A.—I had small bills there. Q.—For provisions? A.—For provisions, yes, sir. Re-direct examination By Mr. Dickinson: Q.—What kind of goods have you had there? A.—Certaii articles that I might be a little short of, fresh fish or some thing like that. I remember one time having a chance to get fresh beef there. .My bills would amount to $20 or $30. Q.—And not to the extent of $50 or $100? A.—No, sir, 1 do not think I ever had that bill there. Q.—Have 3'ou also when 3'ou found vessels that were short given from your stock? A.—I have often. ->u By Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—When did you do that, Captain? A.—I could recall several instances. Q.—YiTiat ship did you supply? A.—I supplied the "Pathfinder. Q.—Who was the captain? A.—Captain Lavender. Q.—When? A.—I forget just now. Q-—You don't remember the 3'ear? A..—No, sir. I also supplied the "Beaver," I remember that. ^ Q.—When? A.—In 1890. Q.—Where? A.—In the Behring Sea. Q.—Who was the captain of the "Beaver" then? A.— Capt. Baker. Q.—Did he get the supplies? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—What did he get? A.—Some little supplies that I do not remember. Examination of the witness closed. IO 20 582 (Discussion.) The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I notice, Mr. Peters, what Sir Charles Tupper said in respect to the proposition that my learned brother has referred to as to the manner of dealing with the evidence as taken on direct examination. The remarks looked to a conference by counsel. Are you able to say what you propose? Mr. Peters:—My proposition is that the evidence should stand just as it is. I see no reason for altering it in any respect or striking any part of it out. In fact, I see no good grounds for asking to strike any part of it out. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not suppose we could ask voluntarily to have it struck out. Of course my learned friends may insist upon it under the ruling. Mr. Peters:—No, I do not insist upon it at all. Mr. Dickinson:—Now, may it please the Commissioners we rest so far as the testimony in Victoria is concerned with the exception of two and possibly three witnesses who will be very brief upon abstract portions of the case and not upon all the issues at all. We have produced here in good faith witnesses from the American side of the water, but we have been unable to close our case as to certain branches. 30 40 Mr. Peters:—Under the circumstances it would be impossible for me to recall my rebuttal evidence until I know the whole case on the other side; nor do I propose to call rebuttal evidence as a whole until their case is absolutely closed. In order to save time there is a witness here now who must leave in a short time and I propose to examine him. He belongs to Seattle, and he is to speak to a certain extent as to what took place in Ounalaska in rebuttal of the testimony and in contradiction of the witnesses called by my learned friend in the "Carolena" case. I may also state that there are also a number of witnesses here who are engaged in the seal fishing and who are about to go on their annual trip. Their testimony will apply not only to the "Carolena" but to several other cases. 1 have given my learned friend a list of the witnesses and of the cases to which their evidence will be applicable. They are simply here as witnesses, most of them- having no personal interest in the case, and it would be ruin to them if they were compelled to lose their whole season's sealing trip. I have made the suggestion to my learned friend that they 5° should be examined now. The evidence need not be printed but only typewritten so that it could afterwards be applied to the particular case in the record. Mr. Dickinson:—We shall consent to anything that will expedite the case. I have told my learned friend that as we prepared each case by itself it would be necessary for us to know before hand in regard to what claim the witness would be sworn. My learned friends informed me by letter last night that these witnesses would be examined only upon the questions as to the catch for the years 1889 and 1890, and of course we were prepared to consent at once to that. They, however, have informed us this morning that it is proposed to examine some of these witnesses on other questions and we have asked that notice of that should be given as we would like to look upon the record of the case as in each particular claim as to which they are examined. 60 io The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you call him in this case of the "Carolena"? A.—He would be called in this case and his evidence would be applicable to the other cases. CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN IN REBUTTAL. David Russell was called as a witness on behalf of Great Britain and was duly sworn. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand you to say, Mr. Peters, that this is a witness in rebuttal whom you call out of the order. Mr. Peters:—Yes, your Honour. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Have you been living lately in the city of Seattle? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—And you came to Victoria on Saturday last? A.—No, sir, I came on Monday morning. Q-—Were you on board the "Carolena" in the year 1886? A.—I was. Q.—Were you on board her when she was taken into the port of Ounalaska? A.—Y'es, sir. 4 Q.—How long were you on board the ship in Ounalaska? A.—I think seven days. I would not be sure with regard to a da3' or two. Q.—Then what happened with reference to you? A.— They put us on board the "St. Paul" and sent us down to San Francisco. Q.—You say "us," whom do you mean? A.—Us and the crew of the "Thornton," barring the mate and captain. Q.—How many men in all-? A.—I believe there were nineteen. Q.—Were you taken from the "Carolena" and put on board the "St. Paul?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did anything happen on that occasion that you remember? A.—Well, nothing any more than they took us on board the "St. Paul" and took food too, for the crew off the "Carolena." Q.—Took food on board for the crew at the same time? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—From where? A.—From the "Carolena." Q.—What did they take? A. Mr. Dickinson:—I object, that is not rebuttal. Mr. Bodwell:—Y'es it is in rebuttal of the testimony of the witness who was called to prove that these goods were not on board the "Carolena." The evidence of Captain Raynor was to the effect that there were only two boxes of biscuits and a few sacks of flour on board the "Carolena," <when she came into port, at the time the inventory was taken. 584 MM: IO 20 30 40 50 (David Russell—Direct.) Mr. Dickinson:—Not at the time she came into port, but at the time the inventory was taken. Mr. Bodwell:—This witness swore that he went on board of the "Carolena" when she canie into port and that this inventory was taken a few days after she came in. Mr. Dickinson:—Even so, it is not rebuttal. The other side have gone in fully into evidence to show the amount of supplies they were deprived of by the United States. In defence we showed that the supplies were reduced, but it does not follow that if the defense contradicts the plaintiff's case they may then rebut again and supplement their main case. Mr. Bodwell:—The position, as I take it, is this: We have proven by our witnesses that a certain amount of provisions were purchased here and put on board the "Carolena," and that she left port with that amount of provisions on board. They meet that by proving that on her arrival at Ounalaska she only had a small quantity of provisions on board, the inference being that we cojild not have put the amount of provisions on board that we said we did. That is the whole line of defence as disclosed in the cross-examination. Now we discover for the first time on the arrival of the "Carolena" at Ounalaska a quantity of provisions were taken from her and placed on board of the St. Paul, in which the crews of these vessels were shipped to San Francisco. That certainly is in rebuttal of the case which is made out by the evidence of the witness. I ask Capt. Raynor if there were not provisions for 19 men taken off the "Carolena" and put on the "St. Paul," and his anstver is that he did not see it and did not know it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You ask that on cross-examination. Mr. Bodwell:—Yes, as a matter of fact we did not have this witness and did not know anything of the facts. Mr. Dickinson:—Can we, sir, rebut and say they did not go on to the "St. Paul." The Commissioner on the part of the U"nited States:—Yes, you can. In their evidence in chief they say there was so much material put on board of the vessel, and you say there was only so much found at Ounalaska. No they undertake to account for it by showing that it was used in an unusual direction. That surely is within the rules of rebuttal, and you are entitled to show on the other hand that they did not go on board the St. Paul. Mr. Dickinsonu:- all right. -Very well, with that understanding, it is 60 Mr. Bodwell:—Q.—What did they take? A.—There was beef, pork, flour, biscuits, tea and coffee, sugar and ham and butter and I cannot remember anything else now. Q.—Do you remember whether there were any canned goods? A.—Unless it was canned condensed milk, but I do not remember anything else. I kind of think 1 saw condensed milk there, but I do not use milk myself. Q.—Any potatoes? A.—I cannot remember whether there were any potatoes or not. Q.—You spoke of biscuits, do you remember the number of boxes? A.—Not positively. There were either four or six but I would not be sure about it. Q.—What do you call these biscuits? A.—Well, sea crackers or pan tile. Q.—Well, sir, what is your full name? A.—David Russel. Q.—How long have "you been in Seattle? A.—I have been there ever since about 1890, I guess. Q,—What year did you go out on the "Carolena," was it in 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What month diel you go out? A.—I was not on board the ship; I was out in the canoe belonging to the ship. Q,—And you came on to the ship and were taken into Ounalaska? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, how long after 3'our arrival at Ounalaska were you put on board the "St. Paul?" A—I think we laid there seven days, when they put us on board the "St. Paul." I would not be positive as to the number of days. Q.—Before you were put on board the "St. Paul?" A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And were the goods removed from the "Carolena" at the same time that you went on board the "St. Paul?" A.— Yes, sir. Q.—At the same time, seven days after your arrival? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Where were you when the goods were taken from the "Carolena?" A.—I was on board of the "Carolena?" Q.—Seven days after your arrival at Ounalaska? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—Did the goods go on board the "St. Paul" before you' did? A-—There was one boat took us on board and another boat took the goods on board. Q.—Did the goods leave first, or did your men leave' the "Carolena" first? A.—I could not say now exactly. Q.—What kind of a boat took you over to the "St. Paul?" A.—It was one of the cutter's boats. Q.—And what kind of a boat took the goods over to the "St. Paul?" A.—That was one of the cutter's boats, too. Q.—Did you see the captain of the "Corwin" on board of the "Carolena" before this? A.—No, sir. Q.—Y'ou never saw him on board? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you see Lieut. Coulson on board of her? A.—Xo, sir. Q.—Or Lieut. Cantwell? A.—The only man I saw on board the "Carolena" was one who I understood to be the third Lieutenant. Q.—Lieut. Cantwell? A.—I do not konw. Q.—Did you see him take an inventory from the "Carolena" when 3'ou were there? A.—No, sir, he was there to guard and nothing else. Q.—He did not take an inventory before you left on the "St. Paul?" A.—No, sir. Q.—And did 3'ou not see him taking an inventory? A.—No, sir Q.—Were you fed on these things on the "St. Paul?" A. No, sir; partly we were and partly we were not. Q.—Where did you take your meals on the "St. Paul?" A.—We took our meals wherever we could get. a hold of it, in fact, we had no meals at all. Q.—Did they set any table for you? A.—No, sir. Q.—What else did you eat besides these goods that were put on? A.—The goods was put on to feed us, but we had no way of cooking them. We got nothing but coffee and biscuits. IO 20 586 (David Russell—Cross.) q__You got some other fare on the "St. Paul?" A.—Yes, by paying for it. Q.—You had some money then? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did all of you have money?- A.—There was a few of us had money, I do not know how many. q. Did you eat any of the pilot bread yourself? A.—Yea, sir. Q— And had some butter with it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On the "St. Paul?" A—Yes, sir. Q._In what shape was the butter taken off? A.—In tubs, I believe, if I remember aright, butter tubs. q. Was there; more than one tub taken to the "St. Paul? A.—I don't remember now. Q_What was the sugar taken into the "St. Paul? A.—l think it was a keg—half barrel. q_How much sugar was in it? A.—Oh, I do not know. Q_Was the barrel full? A.—Pretty near full, I think. q'_How many sacks of flour did you see in the "Carolena' on the day that the removal of the goods was made to ihe "St. Paul?" A.—I do not remember. Q—You don't remember how many the "Carolena had on board that day? A.—No. sir. Q—Cannot you tell? A.—No, sir, I cannot. Q.—How much was taken to the "St. Paul?" A.—I cannot tell. , „„ . . Q__Were there two taken to the "St. Paul?" A.—l cannot tell whether there were two or a dozen. I know there 30 was some. I saw flour there, but I cannot tell how much there was. . . q_You cannot tell how much the "Carolena had lett when vou were seized? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you look into the sugar barrel? A.—We used it right off the barrel on the "St. Paul." Q.—Did you look to see how much butter there was? A.— No, sir. q. What else did you say was taken off besides the sugar and butter? A.—There was hams, I believe. 40 Q.—How many? A.—I cannot tell, but I know we ate some of them. q. Was there one? A.—I am pretty sure there was one. Q.—As my learned friend opposite would say, will you swear there was one? A.—There was one. Q.—will you swear there was any more? A.—I cannot swear as to that. q,—Was there any corn beef? A.—Yes, sir. Q_What was it in? A.—In barrels. Q.—How many barrels of corn beef did you have? A.—I 50 think there were three barrels. Q._Full barrels? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How long was the voyage on the "St. Paul", how many days? A.—About ten days. Q.—How many in the party? A.—Nineteen. Q.—And it took three barrels of corn beef besides all the other things to feed you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What else did you have? A.—A barrel of pork, but I can not tell whether the barrel was full or not. Q.—You took a barrel of sugar, three barrels of corn beef 60 and a tub of butter? A.—I believe there was one tub. Q.—You did not know how full it was? A.—I do not use butter and I did not have occasion to go to the tub. Q.—You did not see how much pork there was? A.—No, sir. Q.—And did any of the other crews partake of the "Carolena's" stores on this ten days' voyage? A.—It was put on for us and the "Thornton's" crew both. 10 20 30 40 50 6o Q.—Did the "Thornton" crew have anything? A.—Yes, they ate the pilot bread and the tea and coffee and sugar. Q.—What stores did they give you on the "St. Paul," that was not got from the "Carolena's" stores? A.—We bought about one meal a day, and they made a tarpaulin mess amd that is about all we did have. The rest we had was tea and coffee and pilot bread. Q.—You don't know if the "Thornton" men had any of 3'our stores? A.—Yes, sir, they did. It was put on board for the nineteen men. Q.—Will you tell me whether you saw these stores put on board before or after you left the "Carolena?" A.—I cannot tell you that exactly. There was one boat on one side of the vessel and one on the other, if I remember aright. We got in one boat and the stores were put in the other boat by the sailors of the cutter. Q.—Did you see the stores put on board? Q.—Before you left? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you see them go to the "St. Paul?" Q.—Are you positive about that, Russel? with the boat. Q.—And they unloaded the stores from her Q.—You are positive about it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know a man by the name of Roland over Seattle? A.—No, Q.—Do you know any one who asked you to come over here as a witness for the United States within three days last past? A.—There was a man there Sunday afternoon about 4 o'clock, but I do not remember his name. Q.—He asked you to come for the United States because you were on the "Carolena" and knew something about this matter? A.—Yes, "sir. Q.—Did you refuse to come? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you tell him you would not come because you would have to lie? A.—No, sir, he wanted to know what I knew about it, and I told him that after I got on the stand I would tell what I knew. Q.—Did you not tell him that if you came to Victoria and told about your experience on the "Carolena" you would have to lie? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you tell him that if you made any statement it would be a lie? A'.—No, sir. Q.—Nothing of the kind? A.—No, sir. Q.—Was there anything said about lying? A.—No, sir; I told him that when I was in the stand and under oath I would tell what I knew about it and not before. Q.—Did you tell him that you would not tell him anything? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You told him you would not tell him anything as to what you knew about the "Carolena?" A.—Not till I got on the stand. him that if you did tell him anything you A.—No, sir. was. Sunday afternoon at Seattle? A.— A.—In my house. business over there Q.—Did you t« would tell a lie? Q.—And that Yes. Q.—Where? Q.—What is youi ing alongshore* there. q.—Now, I'will ask you whether on that occasion at your house did you know whether the name of that man was Roland or not? A.—I believe that was the name but I would not be sure. Q.—Did you tell him that you did not.want to come to Victoria? A.—I told him that I did not want to come with him. EM' 19 1 588 (David Russell—Cross.) Q.—Did you give him as a reason why you did not want to come that if 3rou told th<" truth in Victoria, and had hurt any one in Victoria, you never could come ba,ck here? A.—No, sir. Q.—You did not? A.—No, sir. Q.—And nothing like that? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you tell Mr. Roland,( this same man, on Sunday IO afternoon at Seattle in your house that John Cotsford had been over and had his family in Victoria living there and had had enough of testifying in the case on behalf of the United States, did you say that to him? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you sa3v that John Cotsford's family would have to leave Victoria because he testified to the truth in Victoria? A.—No, sir. Q.—Nothing of that sort? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were lEere anv provisions taken off the "Thornton" oh to the "St. Paul?" A.—I do not believe there was; I do not 20 remember of any. Q.—Did 3'ou see whether the boat went to the' "Thornton" before or after it went to the "Carolena?" A.—I do not remember. Q.—Or to tin* "Onward?" A.—I do not remember of that either; we had none of the "Onward's" crew on board that I know of. Q.—I am not talking about the crew, I am asking did they take an3' provisions from her to the "St. Paul?" A.—I do not believe they diet. 3° Q.—Do you know am'thing about it? A.—I did not see an3'. Q.—Do you know whether there was anything from the "Thornton" or "'Onward" that went to the "St. Paul?" A.— There was nothing in the boat. Q.—Can you tell me what pilot bread the "Carolena" had in her hold before the boat removed any of it? A.—No, sir. Q.—On that occasion? A.—No, sir; I cannot tell 37ou. Q.—And you did not look to see at the time? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you see the pilot bread loaded out of the "Carolena" into the boat? A.—Well, I cannot swear to pilot bread exactly. There was stuff put in the boat. I cannot state exactly what it was. Q.—Would you swear that any pilot bread was taken off the ''Carolena" and put on the boat? A.—Yes, I will swear to that. Q.—And the numbers of cases? A.—I cannot swear to that. Q.—Now, at the time, and I confine your attention closely 5° to the time, that anything was loaded off that boat did you observe at that time what pilot bread was in the hold? A.— No, I would not know. Q.—But did you observe at that time the number of cages or boxes of pilot bread in the hold of the "Carolena"? A.— No, sir. Q.—You do not know the number taken out? A.—No, sir. Q.—And you do not know.the number of cases left, if any? 60 A.—No, sir. Q.—Nor you do not know that any was left? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did 3'ou see an3' stores on the "St. Paul" off the "Thornton?" A.—Not that I remember of; no, sir. Q.—Do you know that the barrels and the boxes and the tubs of butter that went off the "Carolena" had anything in them? A.—Yes, sir, they were full. The barrels were full of beef. 40 Q.--Did you see them before the3T left? A.—Yes, sir, they were taken out of the hold of the "Carolena" and put into the boat. Q.—Now, Mr. Russell, did you see what was inside of these packages? A.—No, sir, not any more than I knew there was cornbeef in them. Q.—You did not look inside? A.—No, sir. io Q.—Did you have any empty barrels in the "Carolena" at the time? A.—No, sir; we had no room to keep empty barrels. Q.—Did 3'ou not empty some of these barrels of cornbeef on the vo3'age? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What did 3'ou do with the barrels? A.—Those we needed we sawed up into tubs, and those we did not need— Q.—Were there any empty barrels left? A.—No, sir. Q.—You did not look inside the things that went over the side of the "Carolena"? A.—No. sir. 20 Q.—Who manned the boat? A.—It was the cutter's men. Q.—Can 3'ou tell whether the stuff that was inside these packages came from the "Carolena" or was furnished from the cutter to make your men comfortable on the way-down? A.—It came from the "Carolena." Q.—How did 3'ou know if 37ou did not look into the packages? A.—Because, the boat was there at the ''Carolena" to take the stuff on boan Q.—Did you help load them? A.—No. I saw them after they were on board the "Si. Paul." 30 Q-—And they had something in them? A.—The barrels had never been broached from the time they left the butcher shop. Q.—They had something in them when they were on the "St. Paul"? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—On that trip up on the "Carolena" did 3'ou stop anywhere? A.—We stopped at Clayoquot. Q.—Was John A. Bechtel on board when you left here and stopped there? A.—Yes, sir. 40 Re-direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—What did Mr. Bechtel go on her for? Mr. Dickinson:—I object to that. You had Mr. Bechtel and could examine him. .Mr. Bodwell:—Y'ou asked that question on cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I think Mr. Bodwell can ask what Mr. Bechtel went on board for. Mr. Dickinson:—Then, ma3" it plea.se your Honour, I desire to withdraw the question. Sir ('. H. Tupper:—You cannot withdraw it; it is too late. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest3':—One vessel ma3" lie alongside another and a man may go on board and pass from one to another. If you had to rest on the statement that the man was on board the ship without any explanation of win' he was on board, then .you would be help- 60 less. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not think 3'our Honour caught the question. The question was whether Bechtel was on the voyage to Clayoquot. I submit, your Honour, that it is not a subject for re-examination to show his business when he was on the ship. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I am inclined to think that if you ask any question on cross-exam- 3° 59° (David Russell—Cross.) ination, breaking new ground, is is competent for the other side to qualify and explain it. Mr. Dickinson:—Then I ask permission to witdraw. the question. Sir C. H. Tupper:—It is too late. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Ordinar- 10 ily when a person puts a question he cannot withdraw it as a matter of right. Mr. Bodwell:—Surely your Honours want ,any light you can get on this subject, and this witness, I believe, can give light. The Commisioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It might perhaps be agreed that Mr. Dickinson should have permission to withdraw the question. 20 Mr. Dickinson:—If counsel on the other side desire to give the Commissioners light on this subject, they can certainly produce their own witness and make their own evidence. Mr. Bodwell:—Here is a witness called and it is apparent that he can throw light on the subject broached by the defence in their cross-examination. My friend, Mr. Dickinson, has himself opened up that subject by his cross-examination. I now state to this court that I believe that the witness can throw light on that question and can explain Mr. Bechtel's visit to Clayoquot, and what he did and how long he remained there. I state that the court has now an opportunity to get light on that subject from this witness. Mr. Dickinson:—My learned friends have had the name of this witness before them all the time, and if they wished they could produce him to throw light on the subject. If they were very anxious about it they certainly could have produced him before. We endeavored to get him, and had no difficulty^ in finding him, but he would not come for us. If the motive of my learned friends is to throw light on the subject they can produce him as their own witness. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It has been shown here before that Mr. Bechtel went up on this vessel. Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Has en the witness any personal knowledge of what Mr. Bechtel was 5 there for? Mr. Bodwell:—The witness knows the purpose for which he was on board, and knows for himself why he happened to be on board ship. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You did not ask him that. Mr. Bodwell:—The first question I asked him was what 6o Mr. Bechtel went on board for, and that is all I said when Mr. Dickinson raised the objection. The question of Mr. Bechtel's visit to Clayoquot was opened up in the examination of Cotsford, a witness whom we did not call, but whom we would have called if we had time to see him before he was brought over here and ready for the witness box. This witness did give evidence about that visit of Bechtel's, and whether it was strictly technical or admissible did not seem to weigh before this tribunal. It is part of the case of the 40 IO 20 30 United States that Bechtel went there as one of the owners of the boat for a purpose connected with her voyage; that he took part in a transaction which was connected with the voyage, and which, if their theory be correct, would stamp him in some measure either as the owner of the boat or as interested in the result of the voyage. Surely that should be enquired into. It is not our case; it is the case of the United States. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Dickinson says that he does not care to raise the question in this way. If you want to prove why Mr. Bechtel went there, is it not better for you to prove it in your own case, rather than by re-examination of this witness? Mr. Bodwell:—Here is the position we are in, after our case has advanced to the last stage, this matter is for the first time brought up out of the mouth of a witness called by the United States. When we attempt to explain the cir cumstances under which Mr. Bechtel went there we are met with an objection and if we should call another witness we would be told, as we have been told, that our case is closed, and that we could only call now in rebuttal. I submit that this is rebuttal testimony and I submit especially that this allegation against our witness is put in as part of the case of the United States. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is that quite clear? Mr. Bodwell:—It never appeared in the case until Cotsford was put in the box. 40 SO Mr. Dickinson: 60 Mr. Dickinson:—The reason it did not appear was that Mr. Bechtel swore he went on the "Carolena" to say good-bye to Captain Ogilvie and only for that purpose. That appeared on cross-examination. Mr. Bodwell:—My learned friend's recollection of the evidence is not quite correct. The' Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It does 8eem to me that it having come out first as a matter which coulel not have been expected, and it being broached by Mr. Dickinson on his cross-examination of this witness, that it is open for you to ask further about it. Evidently the question must have been asked by Mr. Dickinson for the purpose of challenging the testimony upon that point. It having some real value in the case, I presume it is open for 3'ou to qualify it in order to rebut inferences which otherwise might naturally be deducted. If you can qualify the inferences that have been drawn then I think the question ought to be allowee -It goes in in the form of rebuttal. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It is part of their rebuttal. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Yes, and growing out of the question you put, it is a proper question for re-examination. Suppose yon .had -asked if I were there, the witness would be allowed to explain the circumstances under which I was there. Anything which would tend to qualify the incident might be allowed. Mr. Dickinson:—Then under that understanding I do not obji'i-t. Cross-examination bv Mr. Bodwell continued: Q.—Do you know why Mr. Bechtel went aboard the vessel and what his purpose was? A.— Mr. Dickinson:—I object to that. I do not want the witness to give a conclusion of his own. . Mr. Bodwell:—Well, I will ask: Q.—When did Mr. Bechtel o on board? A.—The day we left here, I believe. Q.—What did he do on board? A.—He did not do anything but get sick, from what I could see of him. Q.—He was sick all the way, was he? A.— y'es, sir. Q.—Very sick? A.—Y'es; he was in bed most all the time. Q.—He was on board when you got to Clayoquot? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—What did you do when you got to Clajoquot? A.— Went ashore. Q.—Where did he go? A.—He went into the store, I be- ieve, and stayed there. Q.—How long did he stay there? A.—I woulel not be sure now whether it was a day and a half or two days. Q.—Then where did he go? A.—He went to Albernb Q.—Did you hear anything during the course of the voyage from him, from Mr. Bechtel, which would indicate what his purpose was in taking that trip? Mr. Dickinson:—I object to that.Jj|j That is clearly hearsay. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—There are cases, of course, where statements made by him might be explanatory of his acts. Mr. Dickinson:—That is not the best evidence, my lord, of that, because Bechtel is here and can be examined. Mr. Bodwell:—It is part of the res gestae. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest3':—Anything ,0 he would say as an explanation of his being there might be taken as a declaration as to his acts. Mr. Dickinson:—As part of the res gestae? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Yes, that would be it. Mr. Dickinson:—With Bechtel here, I submit, with great respect, 3'our Lordship, it would be hardly right to support his previous testimony by statements as to what he said. That witness has said certain things, and I am confident that on the argument I shall convince* 3"our Honours that Bechtel on his testimony is not to be believed at all. Mr. Peters:—1 submit, your Honours, that it is not fair to make that statement, in arguing this point. lave no fp§y here. Mr. Peters:—It does not matter. I do not think the statement shoulel be made. Mr. Dickinson:—I am onty making it for illustration; let me finish. Mr. Peters:—1 do object to such remarks being made in regard to a witness, and which remarks are a little unnecessary. Mr. Dickinson:—I use it for illustration, and I intend later on to make the proposition I have stated. The witness has 10 20 3o (David Russell been attacked by us, in answer to his statement that he only went to the ship to say goodbye to the captain. We put on a witness to show that he went on a voyage some two or three hundred miles up to this place. Now, we submit with great confidence that they cannot put a stranger in the box to help Bechtel's evidence out by statements that Bechtel made as to his purpose on that ship on that voyage. It is mere hearsay. If Behctel staled his purpose falsely, and if we could show that his statement was false, under the power this Tribunal has we might raise another issue, personal to Mr, Bechtel. We cannot attack his statement that is said to have been conveyed in the hearing of this man, so as to bring that statement home to Bechtel, nor could Bechtel be punished for it if it were not true. In view of the state of the record, we submit that it is very dangerous to permit hearsay testimony of that kind. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you claim that Mr. Bechtel has any beneficiary interest in this vessel? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, your Honour Q.—And you put in your evidence to contradict this statement that he only went down to say goodbye to the captain? You asked your question for the purpose of showing that he had an interest in the vessel? Mr. Dickinson:—Precisely. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Why should not the question be limited as to whether he said anything on the voyage as to the management of the vessel? 5o 60 think, Mr. Dickinson, that If the wtness was 38 Mr. Dickinson:—That was expressly ruled out when I asked the question of John Cotsford, a member of the crew. I have a distinct recollection of asking that witness as to whether the crew Understood from him that he was one of the owners of that ship, and that was promptly ruled out. The- Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I think it naturally would be in that form. Mr. Dickinson:—Of course it would be if he were an ordinary willing witness, but he was one of the crew of the "Carolena." Mr. Bodwell:—Mr. Dickinson asked Cotsford: "Was Bechtel managing owner of the Carolena?" and after our objection that was ruled out. Cotsford was then examined by Mr. Dickinson as to what Mr. Bechtel did on the schooner while on the way to Clayoquot. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not remember taking part in any ruling as to Mr. Bechtel while on board the vessel undertaking to give any directions about that vessel. Mr. Bodwell:—Your Honour did not make that ruling. The ruling which the Court made, and which was perfectly proper, I believe, was that the question as to who was the managing owner of the "Carolena" should be proved by the record and not by the witness. Mr. Dickinson:—I understood the ruling precise learned friend has stated, and I promptly obeyed without arguing it. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty y as my hat rule ruling was not a proper one asked what the crew understood Mr. Bech 594 (David Russell—Discussion.) tel to be, would not that relate to their understanding of it rather than as to what he said or did to impress them with that understanding? I have no recollection of it, but it might be that an objection of that sort would be a good one to such a question. Mr. Dickinson:—Doubtless. On a ship at sea, the general repute as to who is the managing owner or the owner of the ship, as understood by the crew of that ship, would, I think, be competent evidence of the ownership. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I would not hesitate a moment about ruling that out. I recollect that in reference to the "San Diego" it was said that she was registered in the name of Mr. Bechtel. There was a question about Mr. Munsie being the managing owner; and Mr. Peters said it could only be proved by the record. I know perfectly well that if you are confined to the record you never could prove that any vessel was whitewashed. Speaking for myself, I said at the time distinctly that we were not governed by the record as to whether a person had a beneficial interest in the vessel or not, for the purpose of this hearing. That is the only ruling I remember. This is a question of reputation. Mr. Dickinson:—Not a question of reputation but a question of his treatment of a crew and captain on board ship. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You had better find the record. Mr. Dickinson:—The question of repute came out incidentally for the purpose of showing that there was nothing in the acts or in the conversation to antagonize that. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The language that a man used at the time of doing an action that is in question, if it fairly tends to qualify the act, is admissible evidence, I think. Of course not, if it is after the act and by way of an evasion. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not believe that I agreed to any ruling such as Mr. Dickinson speaks of. Mr. Bodwell:—Although the objection was taken by Mr. Peters it was, I may state, suggested by me. I know the ground on which I made the suggestion and the ground on . which I understood your Honours to rule. Mr. Dickinson asked Cotsford: "Who was the managing owner of the "Carolena?" The objection which I thought tenable to that question was this: That under our shipping law the managing owner of a vessel has to be registered as such, and that, the proper way to prove that was by producing the record. Your Honours ruled, as I understood, upon that ground. Mr. Dickinson was not stopped at all in his examination, and we did not take any objection. Mr. Dickinson was not stopped in asking what Bechtel did on board the " ip, or anything he did after he got to Clayoquot. le Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Mr. Dickinson could ask one of the crew, "Did Bechtel do such things," but I do not think it. competent to ask "Was he the managing owner." Mr. Dickinson:—This is the precise ruling, which is to be found on page -376, in the evidence of John Cotsford: "Q.—In this business up there, or in the business for the "Carolena" on this trip, will you please state who the men were considering managing owners? A.—Mr. Munsie and Mr. Bechtel IO 20 595 (David Russell—Discussion.) "Mr. Peters:—Wait a moment; I submit that a mere employee on a ship is not a proper person to prove that by; it assumes something; in the first place it assumes that he was owner. It is proved here already, I think, that Mr. Munsie was owner; but to ask a mere employee who was the owner of the ship surely cannot be done. If there were two owners it would be on the register; and if there was a managing owner it would be on the register. "Mr. Dickinson:—We think this is suitable authentic testimony, may it please your Honours, to show who the employees were looking up to on the whole trip, in connection with the other testimony. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—You can give evidence as to what he did, Mr. Dickinson, from which the conclusion might be drawn, but you cannot, I think, ask that question. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What was done or said—what actually took place. Mr.' Peters made an objection that it must appear in the papers of the vessel. That is another proposition entirely. "Mr. Dickinson:—I quite understand the objection and the ruling." When your Lordship made that ruling, I abided by it at once without argument, as I always do. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—You could give evidence as to what he did, but I do not think you could 3° ask that question. Mr.Dickinson:—The next statement that I made after that was that I quite understood the ruling and I then proceeded to ask as to the actions of Bechtel. Mr. Petens:—The question of Mr. Dickinson's which was objected to was as to whom the crew thought was the managing owner. Mr. Bodwell:—And just before that Mr. Dickinson was allowed to prove that Bechtel superintended the putting in of 4 ribs in the cane>es. Mr. Peters:—After that the record goes on to say: "The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not think the Commissioners intend to give effect to that objection, at the present at any rate, if they do at all. That is a broader objection than the one we are considering." The objection was not to Mr. Dickinson proving the acts of Mr. Bechtel, and in connection with that we now propose to give an explanation of his acts by showing what other acts 5C he did, and the statements accompanying them at the time. Mr. Dickinson:—As to the question of the manager, take the case of the building. Suppose a man who works under the manager or the orelinary boss who has charge of the contract for the building, is called and is asked to say that the boss told him that he was the boss, would that be ruled out? Is it not always considered competent testimony to bring a substantive fact as to who was manager of any sort of work byproving how the men engaged in that work treated the 6o man whom they thought was the be>ss, and so considered him? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—There is a little distinction there. You used the word "treated," a word which might have availed vou in this case. Mr. Die-kinson;—I meant "considering him," him "consideration" as the manager. or showing 59<5 (David Russell—Re-direct.) The Commissioner on the part of Her. Majesty:—We do not apprehend the question in that light. Mr. Dickinson:—! never like to argue a question after it is decided, and, as usual, when I heard from your Lordship I submitted gracefully, without argument, against a ruling so decisive. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What I propose now is that this witness should be clearly confined within the rule laid down at that time, and which every one acceded to. I propose that the question shall be kept strictly within the line as to what he did say on board ship with reference to the control or direction of the property. By Mr. Bodwell:—(Question repeated)—Q.—Did you hear anjfthing during the course of the voyage from him, from Mr. 20 Bechtel, which would indicate what his purpose was in taking this trip? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Does not that question seem to be more objectionable than the question ruled out from Mr. Dickinson? Mr. Bodwell:—The question we have to ascertain, with all deference, is in what capacity Mr. Bechtel was on board ship; if he was there as a passenger he could not be there as owner. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—One objection to that is, that it rather puts it in the hands of the witness to say what does or does not indicate his purpose. Mr. Bodwell:—I will ask the witness what Mr. Bechtel did. By Mr. Bodwell:—Q.—Mr. Russell, did you have anything to do with putting the ribs in the canoes? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you see Mr. Bechtel when you were doing so? A. —I believe I have seen him there once or twice. Q.—Did he have anything to do or anything to say upon 4° that subject or with reference to that work? A.—No, sir; Ed. Shields was the one that bossed the job. Q.—The question I ask you is, did Mr. Bechtel have anything to do or give any orders with reference to that work? A.—No, sir; not that I know of. Q.—Were you there all the time that was being done? A. —Well, most of the time I was. Q.—Did Bechtel give you any directions or orders about that matter? A.—No, sir. Mr. Dickinson;—I object to that. Q.—Did you hear him give any directions or orders to any one else A.—No. Q.—Did you hear him give any orders or directions to anybody with reference to the vessel, her voyage, or any work that was done about, the vessel, while you were at Clayoquot? Mr. Dickinson:—1 objct to that. Mr. Bodwell:—It stems to me that this question is within 60 the ruling as to whether anything was done or said. The Commisioner on the part of the'United States:—You did not say "on board ship." Mr. Bodwell:—I will put it in another way. Q.—Did you hear him give any such orders or directions to anybody on board the ship during the mS$mi from Victoria to Clayoquot ? A.—No, sir. Q.—Or at Clayoquot? A.—No, sir. w io 20 40 60 (David Russell—Re-cross.) Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Now, sir, was Bechtel sick before he went on the. ship at Victoria or did be get seasick? A.—He got seasick. Q.—How long did you lay at Clayoquot? A.—I cannot remember exactly. Q.—About? A.—Well, between four and six days, I think; I would not be sure. Q.—What did you do there yourself personally? A —I helped put ribs into four canoes. Q.—The putting in of those ribs was down there ai <'layo- quot, was it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the canoes were brought aboard? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—Were the ribs put in on board? A.—Ashore. Q.—Put in ashore? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Whereabouts were the canoes when the ribs were put in? A.—On the beach. Q.—And were the ribs steamed? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where were they steamed? A.—Ashore. Q.—What method was used to steam them? A.—We made a steam box. Q.—Now, was Bechtel about there when you were doing this? A.^I had seen him around there two or three times, probably. Q.—And Shields was doing the work principally? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did Bechtel take hold to help at all? A.—I was helping myself. Q.—Did Bechtel take hold to help? A.—No, sir, I didn't see him. Q.—What did he seem to be doing? A.—Doing nothing, he was sick on shore. Q.—Was he abed? A.—No, sir, he was around. Q.—How do you know where he went to? You said after staying there two days he went off? A.—He told me he was going to Alberni. Q.—Did you see him again? A.—Not until I got back to Seattle. Q.—There is no doubt whatever that the ribs of those canoes were put in, is there? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—There is no doubt about it. is there, that the canoes were not on the "Carolena" when she left Yictoria to go there? A.—No, sir, they wasn't on it. Q.—And how long after you got there did the canoes appear, did you see them? A.—When I went on there they were on the beach. Q.—The four of them? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Did you have anything to do with putting them on the beach? A.—No, sir. Q.—Now, when you got there, how long after you arrived did Mr. Bechtel go ashore? A.—I can't remember exactly. Q.—Did he go pretty promptly; he was there sick, wasn't he? A.—Yes, he went there, probably, I think, within six hours. Q.—Did you go ashore, too? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you stay there? A.—Not altogether. Q.—Did Bechtef stay there at nights? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Didn't go back to the ship, you stayed on the shore at nighis? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And how long did you stay when you first went on shore? A.—I don't remember, a part of the day anyway. Q.—How long after you got there did the caneies appear? A.—The canoes were there when I first went aBbore, if I remember right. Q.—Are you positive about that? A.—I think so. (David Russell—Re-cross—Re-direct.) Q.—Did you see any Indians about there? A.—There were two or three Indian houses close to where the canoes were, I think. Q.—Did you know an Indian named "Indian Jimmie?" A.—Not by name, I did not. Q.—Do you know of a man with some Indian blood by the name of Michael Sereault? A.—I know there was a storekeeper in the place there, a dark mdn; I don't know whether there was any Indian blood in him. Q.—Was he around? A.—He was around the store. Q.—Did you have any talk with him at all? A.—Not that I remember; I don't remember being around the store at all. Q.—You will not swear that the canoes were all there together, or that they came singly? A.—They were all there together when I first seen them. Re-Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell. Q.—Just describe how they were and where they were. A.—If I remember right they were lying right inside of the wharf. There was a kind of a wharf with a shed on it there, and right there there were three or four Indian houses. Q.—Were they altogether? A.—Yes, sir. Q—Do you know why they were there in that position? A.—I was told— Mr. Dickinson:—Never mind what you were told. Witness:—I understood they, belonged to the "Carolena." Q.—And ready to be taken aboard? A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Dickinson:—I submit that this is hearsay testimony. Mr. Bodwell:—I should think it would be among the declarations that a man could make, Captain Ogilvie being dead. I was going to ask who told him. There couldjpos- sibly be no object in misstating the fact at that time, it is in the course of his duty as master of the ship. He was the one to take charge of these things. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not quite understand, Mr. Bodwell, why it is not all covered by your opening case? Mr. Bodwell:—I will just ask the witness who told him, and have the Commissioners rule on it. (To witness.) Q.—Who told you that? A.—That the canoes were there? Mr. Dickinson:—Never mind. Mr. Bodwell:—Am I to go on or not? I ask the witness who told him that. He has just stated that he was told that the cano.es were put there to be delivered, and that they were for the schooner. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You covered all that in your opening case. Mr. Bodwell, have you not? Mr. Bodwell:—The evidence of Cotsford is that the canoes were bought after the arrival of the ship at Clayoquot; and he was there and saw them purchase and ship one canoe; he speaks of it having been bought at $11. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It does not seem to me that this is admissible. By Mr. Bodwell: Q.—You say that Mr. Bechtel told you that he was going to Alberni? A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Dickinson:—If I had had a jury*.I would have moved to strike it out, but I did not think it would make any difference. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It simply goes to show that his whole testimonj' about going •'to Alberni should be stricken out. Mr. Bodwell:—Your Honours, it seems to me that when part of a statement goes in, if it has any relevancy at all, the whole should go in. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—So far as I am concerned, I think the whole statement should go out about his going to Alberni, but how is all this going to interest the Commissioners? What does it all amount to when you get it iu? Mr. Bodwell:—Of course, if I understand my friend's position, it seems to me all these questions will be very important, because, as I understand, they have opened the case in this way, and I understand Mr. Dickinson to have stated a. few minutes ago that he attacked Mr. Bechtel's testimony. Further, that he contended Mr. Bechtel was interested in that ship and went to Clayoquot for that purpose. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you regard it as important to prove that Mr. Bechtel went to Alberni? Mr. Bodwell:—Certainly. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Then why do you not call the witness who knows it? Mr. Bodwell:—Because Mr. Dickinson says he does not believe my witnes, and 1 wanted to substantiate his testimony. By Mr. Bodwell: Q.—There is one question that I ought to have asked. You 50 were asked about a conversation with Mr. Rowland. Do you remember that in your cross-examination? State all that occurred between you? A.—A Veil, him and Cotsford came up to the house, and he asked me if I had been on the "Carolena," and I tohl him yes that I had been there in 1880. and he asked me if I knew about forty and odd boxes pilot bread that was aboard, and I told him I couldn't say. With that I asked him who he was and what he wanted, and he gave me the reasons, and I told him because I wasn't clear of the vessel and I thought ft I gave testimony then; it would be against my own interest, until I found out what I was to do; and he asked me if 1 would come over here as a witness, and I told him no. Then he asked me what my interest was in the vessel, and I told him it all depended what they got. If they got what the*y were suing for it wonlel be somewhere around $500. He said: "You will never get it," and I said "all right." He started to tell me then about witness fees, but T shut him up, and I told him I tlon't want to have (David Russell—Re-direct—Re-cross.) any more to say about it. He told me there was no great harm done, and he went off. Q.—What did he start to tell you about, witness fees? A. —About witness fees. Q.—How far did he go with his story about witness fees? A.—I told him I didn't want no witness fees; that I wasn't going over. Q.—Well, Mr. Russell, your father lives here and you have lived here most of your life? A.—Yes, sir. Q— Yon are well known? A.—I used to be, but I don't think 1 am nov> Q.—Your father was a resident of this city for many years? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And his family has all lived here? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty—That is tot necessary. 20 Mr. Bodwell:—The style of my friend's cross examination might lead to confusion. Your Honours do not know this man as well as I do. (To witness.) Q.—How did you come over here, Mr. Russell; what brought you here? A.—A telegram from Mr. Munsie. Q.—You got that on Saturday? A.—I got it Saturday night. Q.—Did Mr. Rowland tell you who he was? A.—Not until I asked him. Q.—Who did he tell you he was? A.—I asked him if he was on the side of the United States or on the Canadian s'.ele and he told me he was for the United States. I told him I didn't think I would be justified in telling him anything. Re-cross examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Do you know Todd's place in Seattle? A.—Blacksmith's shop? Q.—Boiler works? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know Mr. Todd? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you know when Mr. Cotsford was over here last week? A.—I knew he was over here. Q.—Since that have yon been in Mr. Todd's place and spoken of the case? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you tell Mr. Todd within .the last week that Mr. Cotsford was foolish or a fool for coming over here and could have made $500 if he had not come? /A.—No, sir; I don't know Mr. Todd. Q.—Did you say any such thing to anybody in Todd's boiler shop? A.—No, sir. Q.—Have you been in there? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you say that to any one in Seattle? A.—No, sir; not that I know of. Q.—Did not say that Cotsford was a fool or foolish for coming over here? • A.—No, sir. Q.—And that he could have made $500 if he had not come? A.—No, sir. Q.—Now, Mr. Russell, your family have been here^all this 60 time while you have been in Seattle? A.—I have a family in Seattle. Q.—Have you heard from Mr. Munsie? A.—I got a telegram from him Saturday night. Q.—Hadn't you heard from him before? A.—No, sir. Q.—Are you sure? A.—There was a man over there that I was talking to, but I coudn't say whether he was there for Mr. Munsie. Q.—What was his name? A.—I don't remember his name. Q.—He was for Great Britain in this matter? A.- lieve he was. Q.—How long ago? A.—I think it was Thursday or Friday. Q.—Well, you have not concealed your address or whereabouts from Mr. Munsie or the representatives of Great Britain, have you, at any time since you have been in Seattle? A.—No, sir, although I have not given it to them. .Q.—But your family are all here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And they all knew where you were? A.—No, sir, my family didn't know where I was. Q-—Your family didn't know where you were? A.—No, sir. Q.—Didn't any one here know where you were? A.—No, sir. Q.—How did Mr. Munsie know where to telegraph you? A.—Mr. Munsi.°, I expect, knew where I was. 20 Q-—All the time, did he not? A.—Possibly; yes, sir. Q.—How did he know it? A.—Probably for the last six 3'ears. Q.—Knew where to find you? A.—Yes, sir; knew where I was working. Q.—Has he ever been over to sec you? A.—No, sir. Q.—How has he known this so well? A.—Because he had my address. Q.—When did he get it? A.—I don't know. Q.—When did you send it to him? A.—I never sent it to 30 him. Q.—How do you know he had your address? A.—I suppose he got it from the directory, if he wanted it. Q.—You say that he has known for the last six years where you were, but your family did not. What do you mean by that; that you did not let your family know where you were? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—But you did let Mr. Munsie know ? A.—No, sir, they probably got it the same way as he got it if they know it. Q.—What makes you think that Mr. Munsie knew it all the 4° while? A.—On account of sending over for me when he did. Q.—What did you mean when you said he had known it for the last six years? A.—Because I was there for the last six years. Q.—You said he knew all the time where you were? A.— I suppose that he would know where I was; he knew that I was over there. Q.—How did he know that, Russell, come, let us have it? A.—I believe I was here about five or six years ago and I 3 may have given him my address then; told him I was in Seattle. Q.—Have you been here since the five or six years? Yes, sir. Q.—When? A.—I was here a couple of years ago. Q.—Did you see Munsie? A.—No, sir, I don't remember of seeing him. Q.—Did you not see him? A.—I can't be positive of it. Q.—Have you been here since the two years? A.—I didn't °° stay here very long, though. Q.—When were von here? A.—I came here on the "Rosalie." Q.—The regular daily boat? A.—Working on her. Q.—You came in here, did you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And yon come in here every day, do you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now? A.—I am not on he (David Russell—Re-cross. W. D. Byers—Direct.) Q.—When did you leave her? A.—I haven't been on her for probably two years and a half. Q.—Within the two years, have you not. been here except as you came on the "Rosalie?" A.—I was over here the other day on the "Kingston," but I didn't come ashore. I was working on her. Q.—How long ago was that? A.—That was Wednesday, I think, of last week. Q.—You did not report to Munsie? A.—No, sir, I made a trip on her and went right back on her. Q.—Did you ever have a talk with Munsie about this case? A.—No, sir. Q.—Or Bechtel? A.—No, dr. Q.—Or anyone representing them? A.—Only when I came over here I went up to Mr. Bodwell's. Q.—But the counsel did not telegraph you and Munsie did? A.—Munsie telegraphed me. Testimonv of Mr. Russell closed. William Douglas Byers, a witness duly sworn, was recalled on the part of Great Britain. Direct examination by Mr. Peters. Q.—Mr. Byers, you have already stated your experience as a seal hunter and I will not go over that. In shooting seals, will you tell me how are the majority of them shot, sleeping or swimming? A.—Sleeping. Q.—A large majority of them or not? A.—Yes, sir, a very large majority of them are shot sleeping. Q.—In the course of your experience, have you shot a large number of seals? A.—For three years I was a hunter. I have shot a large number. Q.—Is it a fact that a certain portion of the seals killed are lost by sinking? A.—There is a certain number. Q.—From 3'our own experience, can you tell us what proportion of seals that are shot dead are lost? A.—From my own experience, and from the experience of hunters I have had with me, I think about 5 per cent. Q.—With regard to sleeping seals? A.—You mean lost or sunk? Q.—Yes, sir? A.—Five per cent, of the total amount killed sink. Q.—A greater number are lost when swimming? A.— The greatest number lost are lost swimming. Q.—With regard to those asleep, what proportion are lost? A.—A very small percentage. Q.—About what? A.—Probably two per cent., not more. Q.—What distance do you shoot them at when asleep? A.—From ten to fifteen yards. Q.—Now, there is some question here as to seals being able to scent a long way off, is that the case? A.—Yes, sir. 60 Q.—And is that a practical difficulty, and how do you overcome it? A.—We overcome it by keeping to the leeward of them all the time. Q.—Is there any difficulty in doing that? A.—Yes, quite a difficulty. Q.—But you overcome it in that way? A.—Oh, yes, we can overcome it. Q.—Do you fail to get many shots on account of their smelling you? A.—It don't often happen, except in a sud- Q.—If you do not take a great deal of precaution the seals awaken, do they not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What is the result if they do awaken? A.—The re suit is they go away and you do not get a shot at them. In some cases you do if you are close enough. Q.—So that any disturbance which awakens them lessens the chances of your getting the seals even if they are there, does it not? A.—If they are awakened the chance is smal Q.—In order to get a quantity of seals when they are there you want to take the seals asleep,.do you not? A.—Yes, sir. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—With regard to the quantity of ammunition you require. Suppose a seal is wounded. You often wound a seal? A.—Yes, sir. 30 Q-—And chase it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Does that cause the use of much ammunition? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Give us an idea of how much you fire at one seal before you get him? A.—I have known hunters to shoot 25 shots at one seal after he is wounded. Q.—It -is quite common to fire several shots? A.—It quite common to fire seven or eight shots. Q.—And to chase them a long distance? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You do not give them up until you get them? A.— 4° No, sir; ammunition is no object at all. Q.—When you come down to a supply of ammunition you must allow for a great number of charges to be used in that way? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioners then rose. S Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 17, 1896. At 10.30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. Wentworth E. Baker was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and, being duly sworn, was examined, by consent of counsel, out of order, with reference to claims to be hereatfer taken up. The witness was examined in the "Carolena" case in rebuttal by Mr. Peters as follows: Q.—Capt. Baker, in 1890 yon were master of the "Viva." Did you meet Capt. Miner that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what ship was Capt. Miner then? A.—The "Allie I. Aleer." 604' (W. E. Baker—Direct. W. T. Bragg—Direct.) Q.—Capt. Miner stated that he had given you a certain quantity of provisions and stores during the conrse of the voyage. I simply want you to tell the Court what he did actually give you, so far as you remember? A.—He gave me some things in exchange for other things I had—a can of powder, for one thing. Q.—A 25-pound keg, do you mean? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Anything else but powder? A.—I can't remember. I think there was some small items. I can't remember what it was. Q.—And in exchange for that you gave him something, I presume? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—What? A.—I gave him some coal. Q.—A large quantity? A.—No, sir. Q.—About what quantity? A.—I think it was five sacks. Q.—So that the whole transaction was a very small one? A.—A very small one. Laughlan McLean was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and, being duly sworn, was examined, by consent of counsel, out of order with reference to claims to be hereafter taken up. Captain Wm. Cox, called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and being duly sworn, was examined out of order with reference to claims to be hereafter taken up. The Commissioners then rose. Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 18,1896- i At 10.30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. Examination of William Cox continued by Mr. Peters. Charles A. Lundberg was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and, being duly sworn, was examined by consent of counsel out of order with reference to claims which 50 are to be taken up hereafter. William Thomas Bragg was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and, being duly sworn, was examined by consent of counsel out of order with reference to claims which are to be taken up hereafter. The following part of the evidence of the witness was declared to be applicable to the "Carolena" case: 60 Examination by Mr. Peters: A.—I Q.—For how many years did 3'ou act as hunter? have acted for eight 3rears as hunter. Q.—On the coast of Behring Sea and in other places, I believe? A.—Yes, sir; everywhere. Q.—And during that time you had considerable experience, I presume, in shooting seals? A.—1 had. There was one year that I was mate and hunter, and I did not include that when I answered your qenstion. 10 {W. T. Bragg—Direct—Cross. Q.—In 1889? A.—Yes; for eight years I was a straight hunter. Q.—And during that time you shot a very considerable number of seals? A.—I killed thousands. Q.—How are the majority of the seals shot? Are they asleep or are they running? A.—Sleeping seals. Q.—It is a fad that some seals are lost, I believe, by sinking after they are shot? A.—It is. Q.—From your own experience, and referring to nothing but your own experience, can you give us an idea of what proportion of seals that are shot are actually lost? A.—Do 3'ou mean shot by myself? Q.—I am now referring to your own experience, and nothing else. A.—About four per cent., sir; not more than five per cent.; that is, seals that actually sink. Q.—Do you mean to say that if you actually killed by shooting a hundred seals about five per cent, are lost by dnking? 20 A.—Five are lost by sinking. Q.—And no more? A.—I do not think so from my experience. Q.—Does that loss occur in the case of shooting seals that are asleep, or in the case of shooting seals that are swimming? A.—In both. Q.—Which is the largest number of them, I moan that are lost? A.—Seals that are travelling. Q.—Your answer is that about five per cent, covers the whole loss, including both sleeping seals and travelling seals? 30 A.—Y'es. Cross-examnation by Mr. Warren. Q.—Mr. Bragg, I suppose you mean by that the seals that are actually killed and that to your knowledge were killed? A.—I mean that were killed dead and sunk. Q.—That does not include those that were shot at and wounded and got away? A.—No, it doesn't. Q.—Y'ou did not include that number when you gave your 4° percentage? A.—I did not. Q.—There are many of them that are wounded and get away? A.—There is considerable. Q.—And all you mean to say is, that of the number of the seals that are actually killed four or five per cent, of them sink? A.—Yes, sir, sink. SO Clarence Nelson Cox was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and duly sworn. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What is this evidence taken for, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—This is on the catch in 1890. Direct examination by Mr. Peters. 6° Q.—Y'ou live in Victoria? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—And you have lived here for many years? the winter of 1888. Q.—You have been engaged in seal fishing? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—For how many years? A.—1889 was my first year sealing, and I have been here ever since. Q.—What ship did 3'ou fish in in 1889? A.—I was mate on the schooner "Sapphire" in the early part of the season I was on the "Annie C, Moore," 6o6 (C. N. Cox—Direct—Cross.) q.—We have already got the catch of the "Sapphire" from A.—Yes. A.—I was master of the Do you remember? A.- 10 20 30 40 So 60 your brother who was captain? Q.—In what vessel were you? schooner "Triumph." Q.—What tonnage was she? Ninety-eght tons. Q.—What boats did she carry and what crew? A.—She had a white crew and six sealing boat, and the stern boat. Q.—You went into Behring Sea that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you keep a book showing the number of seals you caught in Behring Sea? A.—I did, sir. Q.—Did you make, the entries in that book from day to day? A.—I did, sir. Q.—Is there a column in that book showing the days and a column showing the number of seals each day? A.—Yes, sir. they would be all together, the days, and the number of seals taken that day in the column opposite the dates. Q.—And those two columns were put down from day to day? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I want you to look at your book and read off to me the day, the month and the number of seals you caught during the months of July and August, 1890? A.—On July 9, 1 seal; July 12,1 seal; 15th, 34; 16th, 1; 18th, 6; 19th, 27; 20th, •64; 21st, 24; 22nd, 1; 23rd. 1; 24th, 53; 25th, 87; 26th, 4H; 29th, 18;-that was all in July. August 1st, 1; 2nd, 10; 3rd, 22; 4th, 1; 6th, 1; 7th, 4; 9th, 1; 10th, 66 or 67; 11th, 52; 12th, 2; 15th, 1; 16th, 7; 19th, 2; that was all. Q.—Give me the total? A.—473 for Behring Sea. Q.—You sealed for the last day on the 19th? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Then you left? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What did you leave for? A.—The weather wasn't very good and seals were scarce. Q.—Where were you sealing when you left? A.—I was down to the southward of the Islands. Q.—Will you be kind enough to tell me how far about— I am referring to the Pribyloff Idands? A.—Yes, sir, about 90 miles, I think, from the Islands. Q.—To the southward of the Pribyloff Islands? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Give me the latitude and longitude of your last day'3 fishing? A.—The last day's fishing I have here was not taken there. Q.—Where was the last day's fishing? A.—More to the southward and westward; it would be about longitude 170.57 and latitude 56. Q.—And that was how far to the southward and westward of the Islands? A.—That would be 80 miles. Q.—Then on account of the weather being bad and seals not being very plentiful, you left the sea? A.—I left the sea. Q.—In 1888 did you fish? A.—No, sir, I wasn't sealing. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson. Q.—Did you make a custom house report? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And reported the number of your catch in writing? A —Yes, sir. Q.—Did you distinguish the Behring Sea catch from the coast catch? A.—I was dismasted and came in here, if I remember right, on the 1st of February, and then I made a report of how many seals I hael. I had about 50 or 52, and when I returned in the fall I am not sure whether I put in the rest of the coast catch or not. Q.—In your report to the custom house did you distinguish the coast catch from the Behring Sea catch? A.—Oh, yes, sir. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—And whatever report you made, Captain, to the custom house would be in writing? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—And when you were entering? A.—Yes, sir. Q,—And that is there to be found whatever it was? A.— Yes, sir. 20 Q.—In the year 1890, Captain Cox, you were on the southern coast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That would be from Cape Flattery on the north? A.—-r Yes, sir. Q.—And San Francisco on the south? A.—After going on my southern trip, after being in Victoria dismasted, I didn't go above Columbia river. Q.—That would be further south than Cape Flattery? A. —Y'es, sir; much further south than Cape Flattery. Q.—I want you to look at your book and tell me, in the 3 first place, between the 21st day of March, 1890, up to the fifth day of April, how many days you sealed and what you caught day by day? A.—On March 28th I got 56 seals, on the 29th 11, 30th 3, April 5th 26. Q.—What is your next date? A.—April 6th. Q.—And the next after that? A.—The 7th. Q—How many? A.—I only got three one day and two he next. The Commissioner on the part of the United States .-—What 40 is the total for the ten days? Witness:—I believe 101 in the ten days specified. . Q-—You hunt on Sundays as well as other days? A.— There is no Sundays sealing.' Q-—Will you be kind enough to tell me about that place you were hutning at that time, that is, in regard to Cape Flattery? A.—In the vicinity of Cape Flattery. I couldn't say from memory just where I was. Q.—And how far apart are Cape Flattery and Neah Bay? A.—About 12 miles. Q.—How far is the sealing ground from Neah Bay? A.— Well, we sealed any place from 25 miles to 40 miles off Cape Flattery. Q.—So that a. vessel at Neah Bay would be within that distance of the sealing grounels? A.—35 or 40 miles, I should ry. Q.—You did not see the "Pathfinder?" A.—Not that I remember. gQ Q.—And you knew nothing about her being seized? A.— No, I knew nothing whatever of the "Pathfinder." Q.—Is that considered poor or good ground? A.—-It has been considered very good sealing grounds; been very good catches taken there. q. is it a ground much frequented by sealers at that time of the year? A.—Yes, sir, every year. Q.—For instance, in your trips on the coast you have always fished on that ground? A.—Every year, sir. (C. N. Cox—Cross.) Q.—Is that the case with most all the sealers? A.—Generally a great uumber of sealers there every year, Cross-examination resumed by Mr. Warren: Q.—In 1890 on the coast, Captain, you caught 101 seals in ten days? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That would be about 300 a month? A.—You can't really figure that way. Probably at times we would get four or five regular hunting days, and there may be again a week when our boats wouldn't be out; there is no way of striking an average. Q.—You do not think that because you take seals in one art of the month that that is any indication that you would take them in another part of the month? A.—A great deal depends on the weather. Q-—And there is a great deal of luck in it? A.—There is a certain amount of luck. 20 Q-—And there is a chance of finding where the seals are and getting them? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—And a great deal depends on your skill in getting your men out and managing them and controlling them? A.— Oh, a little. Q.—A great deal? A.—Oh, I don't know. Q.—Is it not a fact. Captain, that a man's skill as a captain and his reputation depend on the success he has in handling his crew of hunters and seamen? A.—Oh, yes, to a certain extent it does. 30 Q.—And by handling his crew with success you mean managing them so that they can get the best results? A.—Yes. Q.—And there is such a thing as the best results in sealing? A.—Oh, the catches vary a good deal. Q.—In this year, 1890, Captain, you appear to have done about as well on the coast as you did in the sea? A.—I done better. Q.—Just tell the Commisdoners—you have had considerable experience in sealing—when you are out sealing how " many seals are there in a bunch that hunters go after ordi- 40 narily; how do they travel? A.—Oh, we lower very often and we don't see seals at all. When the day is fine enough to put our boats out we lower whether we see seals or not, when we consider that we ar on the ground for seals. Q.—There are no exact positions on the chart where you would go and anchor your boats? A.—There are a lot of positions that 1 would like to anchor at. Q.—But near the islands? A.—No, sir; not particularly the islands. Q.—There is no such thing as seeing a large number of seals and lowering the boats and starting after them and killing them, is there? A.—I have seen that once. Q.—How many did they get. out of that large body of seals in that way? A.—I couldn't say; I wasn't master of the vessel, and therefore I couldn't say. Q._Was it on the "Sapphire" in 1889? A.—No, sir; it .was on the "Annie C. Moore" in 1889. Q—Whereabouts? A.—Down off Columbia River. Q.—Not up in Behring Sea? A.—No, dr. 60 q.—You never saw in Behring Sea any such occurrence as that? A:—I've seen quite a number of seals from the vessel, but I don't know as we ever lowered expressly for that purpose. Q.—You don't want to be understood as testifying that boats go out into a large herd of seals and catch them right and left? A.—No, sir. Q.—They take them up separately? A.—Y'es, one and two together—three. SO Q.—The canoes or boats, which ever you may be using. Which you use? A.—I have had canoes,since 1892. Q.—They circulate about the boat, and when they find a seal sleeping ,traveliing or breeching, whatever he may be doing, they kill him? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Then they go searching for another? A.—Yes, Bir. Q.—It is a fact, is it not, that when there are a large num- 10 ber of seals travelling together, they have seals on the edge of the herd that keep an outlook, and it is very hard to approach them? A.—Yes, when they are sleeping, a large number together, they are much more difficult to get than if sleeping singly. Q.—Then it is a fact that if they are more abundant in the neighborhood of the vessel it is harder to get them? A.— I don't think so. Q-—Where there is a large bunch of seals asleep they always have outlookers? A.—There is generally one or two 20 awake. Q.—They make a noise and the others are aroused? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—What year did you take white men aboard of the boat, Captain? A.—In 1890 and 1891. Q.—How many white men were aboard your boat in 1890? A.—23 altogether. Q.—Did you outfit your boat? A.—I did. Q.—Make out the bills for all the supplies? A.—I made out all the lists for the supplies. 30 Q.—O.K.'d the bils before they were paid? A.—I did. Q.—Paid them yourself? A.—No, sir. Q.—Who owned the boat? A.—E. B. Marvin & Co. Q.—Was your brother a member of the firm at that time? A.—I don't think he was a member of the firm, but he was an owner in the vessel. Q.—That was the "Triumph?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You gave the tonnage of the "Triumph" as 98? A.— Yes, sir. . Q.—Was she not 106? A.—That was the gross tonnage, 4° the net tonnage was 98. Q.—On what basis do you estimate the cost of boarding the men on a sealing vessel? A.—Well, I think about $11 a month. Q.—For white men? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—That is in Victoria, of course? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—Indians are boarded cheaper than white men, are they not, Captain? A.—Well, I couldn't say as to this year. Q.—What year are you speaking of? A.—Eight years I had white hunters. 5° Q.—Will you answer my question 9 You were speaking of your experience year by year handling white men? A.—You ask me the cost of be>arding Indians? Q.—I am talking about your answer of $11 per month. When you answered that question you were speaking with reference to your experience on the "Triumph" in 1890, as well as your experience in other vessels? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1889 did you have white men? A.—I was mate that year. We had Indians. I was mate of the "Sapphire." Q.—And your brother was captain? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—Who bought the supplies that year on the "Sapphire?" A.—Well, I couldn't really say, but I think,the captain ordered the supplies and O.K.'d the bills. Q.—At least you did not? A.—I had nothing whatever to do with Q.—Now I ask you if the cost of boarding Indians per Indian was not less than the cost of boarding white men? A. L^a 20 30 40 So 60 (C. N. Cox—Re-cross.) Q.—Now, speaking generally, based upon your experience, what is the cost per month of boarding an Indian?' A.—I think about $6, the way I feed my Indians. Q.—About $6 per month per man? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is running through what years, captain? A.— '93, '94, '95 and '96. Q.—Before 1893 you did not have Indians? A.—Not.as master. Q.—As a matter of general knowledge that you have picked up around Victoria since you have been here, do you not know that Indians are much better treated aboard the vessel than they used to be? A.—I think they are a little; I am not in a position to say that; it would be hearsay. Q.—Better fed, are they not? A.—I make no difference in the way I feed them now from what I did then. Q.—After you got back from 3'our sealing trip in 1890 did you have any supplies left? A.—I had some, yes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We have said several times that you cannot go into specific voyages. It was ruled out on your objection. On cross-examination they can go into specific vessels. Cross-examination continued by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—I have just had an opportunity of examining your book. Are these two pages, 132 and 133, from which you have testified to-day? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And will you please tell me what year page 132 refers to? A.—1890. Q.—That year is not anywhere on the page, is it? A.—No, sir. Q.—And what does page 133 represent? A.—The same year. Q.—Did you commence page 133 before you commenced page 132? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Then the January «n page 133 means January, 1890? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And July 9th on page 132 means July 9th, 1890? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—These entries, you say, were made at the time? A.— They were, sir. Q.— On the ship? A.—On the ship. Q.—Do 3'ou know any reason why there were no other pages in this book from page 1 through to this place where there were any entries of seal catches except the accounts of the men;' and I do not think they are there? A.—To a certain extent they are there. Q.—They do not show the seal catch, do they? A.—No, sir. Q.—There is nothing about the catch of the men or of seal catches in this book from page 1 clear through to the end, except on pages 132 and 133? A.—That is where I keep the account of the men, of the skins that came outboard oTthe vessel. Q.—And you commenced January before you commenced July? A.—Why. certainly, sir. Q.—And what do the last figures in the column on both pages represent? A.—The 22nd. I got one and added it to the previous day. 0.—Added each catch day after day? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—And was the ink filled in every day? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were the pencillings filled in every day? A.—No, sir. That was done within the last week. Q-—But on the other page the ink was filled in every day? A.—Yes, sir. (C. N. Cox—Re-cross—Re-direct. Q.—Then that gives on page 133 the total coast catch? A.— Yes, sir.' Q.—Was that on the way up? A.—We first started at the port of San Francisco. Q.—Commenced in January? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And was on the way up? A.—Yes, sir, I was dismasted and came to Victoria, and I did not gd on the sealing io grounds again until sometime in the first of March; I don't know just what time. Q.—And your total of the coast catch was 1200 that year? A.—1197. Q.—And the total of the Behring Sea catch was 473? A.—Yes, dr. That has been added there within the last week. Q.—Is there any other memorandum that you kept of the catches except this? A.—Yes, sir; I had a small book, but I don't just know where if is now. 20 Q-—Bid you keep it in the small book as well as in this be>ok? A.—I had a small book in my pocket, and as each boat came alongside I put it in that small book. Q.—And transferred the same day to this book? A.—Yes, sir. (Book from which witness testified as to pages 132 and 133, marked "No. 10" for identification, being the same book as to which the witness previously testified.) 30 Direct examination resumed bv Mr. Peters. Q.—You were brought down to the question of the cost of outfitting schooners? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I want to ask you, as a matter of fact, how many schooners you had actually engaged in outfitting yourself. Did you have anything to do with outfitting one in 1889? A.—No, sir, since 1890 I have fitted a vessel out for sea. Q.—Previous to 1890 you fitted out'none? A.—No, sir. Q.—As to what it cost to feed Indians in 1886, 18887, and 1888; are you able to give any information? A.—No, sir.N 4° Q.—When did you come to British Columbia? A.—In the winter of 1888. - Q.—So you had no knowledges whatever of the way it was done prior to that? A;—I didn't hardly know there was a sealing ship. Q.—And I think you began to seal the very first year you went out? A.—In '89, yes, sir. Q.—In the year 1890, when you sealed, was the second year you had been out in a sealing ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Since 1890 you have been every year? A.—Yes, sir. 5 Q.—In what ships? A.—In the "Triumph" every year but one when I was master of the "E. B.Marvin." Q.—How many boats did you have? A.—T had six boats on the "Triumph" in '90 or '91, since then I have had Indians. Q.—Will you tell me the number of men you had in those years? A.—23 men. Q.—In 1892, and 1893 and 1894 did you fish with Indians? A.'—In 1892 I was master of the schooner "Marvin." 60 q.—The other years you fished in the "Triumph?" A.— With Indians. Q.—When you had Indians aboard how many men would you have? A.—The first year I had 13 canoes and 26 Indians, and I carried four sailors, two mates, cook, steward and myself.' Q.—So your crew was much larger in number than when you carried only white men? A.—Yes, sir, it was. K>sa I 1 20 40 50 60 \M 612 (C. N. Cox—Re-direct.) Q.—And although the Indians might cost you less .per heael you had to carry more men? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Is that the case? A.—Yes, sir, it is. My own provision bill has been larger with Indians than when I carried white men. Q.—Now, Captain Cox, supposing you had a crew of 23 men, which was about what you had on the "Triumph," and you had a crew of 11 men, say half the number, also white men, do you think you could feed those 11 men at the same rate per head that you could the 23? A.—I am under the impression it will cost more to feed the 11 than it would the 23. ■ Q.—Have you any doubt about that? A.—I think it would cost more to feed the 11 per man. Q.—Now, then, you fitted out this "Triumph" for two years with white men? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Can you, in round figures, without going into particulars, give me per year what the provision bill was? A.— No, sir, without reference to my bills I could not. Q.—Who would have those bills? A.—They are at E. B. Marvin's office Q.—Do you know Mr. Frank Adams? A.—I do. Q.—He is in the employ of Marvin & Company? A.—One of the firm <>f E. B. Marvin & Company. Q.—Will he know the bills? A.—He will. Q.—What two years was it you fitted up the "Triumph?" A.—1890 and 1891. Q.—Now, with Indians vou fitted up in what years? A.— In 1893. 1894, 1895 and 1896. Q.—How many of those years were you in the "Triumph?" A.—All six years were in the "Triumph." Q.—Which year did you go on the "E. B. Marvin?" A.— 1892, I think. Q.—What size is the "Marvin?" A.—I think she is about 116 tons. 0-—Was she manned with Indians or white men? A.— White men. Q.—How many boats? A.—T bad six boats part of the season and a stern boat, and the latter part of the season going to Copper Islands I had only five boats altogether. Q.—So there was not much difference in the enuipment of the "Triumph" and the "E. B. Marvin?" A.—I don't tbinir there would be hardly any difference, as I was really fitted out for six boats the same as the "Triumph." O.—When yon say you ftted ur> with Indians you have the bills for that aiso? " A.—1 do, sir. Q.—And you can produce those bills? A.—I can produce the "bills for every year. Q.—When yon say you fitted ou<, what voyage did you fit out for? A'—Leave here in January to come home about September; since then we fitted out for October, dnce 1893. Q.—You were asked by Mr. Warren as to whether there was not a good deal of luck in this matter, and particularly whether there was not a good deal depended on the way the captain handled his men, and you said there was? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Assuming that you have a captain who knows how to handle His men, there is not much chance about it, is there? A.—I consider the chances are whether the captain stays among them and gets them or not. Q.—If you once find seals the captain's duty is to keep among them? A.—Yes, sir. Q — And if you do that, is there much chance about it? A. —No chance whatever. Q.__Why? A.—If you stay among them you will get them. (C. N. Cox—Redirect.) Gustave Hansen—Recalled.) Q.—Do seals herd together as Mr. Warren suggests? A. —I never have seen them that way. Q.—As a matter of fact, are the seals you get scattered about here and there? A.—Yes. Q.—Coming down to this point of chance, did you ever go on a voyage when you did not find them? A.—I never did. Q.—Given that you once find the seals, is there any more IO chance about it than when you find mackerel when you are mackerel fishing? A.—No, sir. Q.—Coming back to the point about the seals being alf in a herd together, is that the case at all in the months of July, August and September? A.—I have never seen them in that way. Q.—How do you find the seals then? A.—Scattered about. Q.—On certam grounds? A.—I seldom find them on the same grounds. Q.—How many will you find together, as a rule? A.— 20 Three or four; two; very often one. Q.—And this idea of large herels with watchmen to keep the pelagic sealer off, is there anything of that kind in Behring Sea? A.—Not in my experience. Q.—Do you find them in larger bodies on the southern coast? A —Yes, Q.—When they are going up to the sea? A.—On the southern coast we find them in larger bunches. Q.—And the remarks you have made when asked about 25 seals together, and that sort of thing, does that apply to Beh- 30 ring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you ever meet a mass containing as many as 25 seals close together in Behring Sea at once? A.—No, sir. Q.—You meet them in scattered numbers? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Over the feeding ground? A.—That is the case; yes, sir. The Commissioners then rose. 40 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, Between Great Britain and the United States of America Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 19, 1896. At 10:30 the Commidoners took their seats Alfred R. Bissett was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and after being duly sworn was examined out 50 of order by consent of counsel. Captain Gustave Hansen recalled on the part of Great Britain. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Generally speaking you have been engaged in sealing for how many years about? A.—For about 17 years. 60 Q.—Have you during that time been engaged actually as a hunter? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—For how many years were you actually engaged as a hunter? A.—About 12 years. Q.—And during that time have you shot a large number of seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—Now I want to ask you one question with regard to the shooting of seals; a certain number are lost by sinking are they not? A.—Yes, si K-SB 614 1 6 ilMi io 20 30 (Gustave Hansen—Direct.) Q.—Can you give us any idea from your own experienc in shooting as to what is the proportion of seals you say are lost by sinking? A.—About 2 per cent. Q.—Are the majority of seals shot while sleeping or when travelling? A.—The majority are shot sleeping nowadays. Q.—When does the loss of the seal by, sinking generally occur, is it when you shoot them sleeping or when they are travelling? A.—When they are standing up—when they are travelling. Q.—And your average of 2 per cent., does that apply to the seals shot in every position? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You have stated that they are lost more when they are standing up—when they are travelling? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What is the reason, in your experience, that you lose them most in that position? A.—They are very apt to face around to you when you are shooting them with a rifle. Of course you will have to shoot them with a rifle because you can shoot them further away than if you use a shot gun. Q.—They face you when you are shooting them with a rifle, and what is the effect of that? A.—When you shoot them that way you shoot them in the neck, and if you break his neck bone his head goes back and of coures he floats. But if you do not shoot them that way you only touch some cords or veins and he actually starts up, and by doing that he pulls himself down. By the time you would get up. there to him there would be nothing but a pool of blood. He might be only a few inches down in the water but your boat would go over him and you would not get him. Q.—If his head drops forward does he float? A.—Yes. sir. 40 50 60 has a chance of sinkiiu Is that it' Q.—And if not he A.—Yes, sir. Q.—There is another thing which I wish to ask you about seals. Will you tell me as regards the wind, which way the seals generally travel? A.—To windward. Q.—Is that the invariable rule? A.—That is the way I found it all the time. Q.—They are alwa37s travelling to windward? A.—Yes; sir, that is the only instinct they do have. Q.—So that when you are after seals you find them going to windward? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Always? A.—They might come in suddenly from the weather side and make a dive to leeward, but then we always find them generaly in going to windward. Q.—Now in your previous examination you describe some catches you made. I want you to come down to the year 1888. Q.—Were you seal fishing in that year? A.—Yes, sir. . Q.—In what schooner? A.—The "Adda." Q.—How many boats had she? A.—She had seven canoes. Q.—She had no boats? A.—She had a stern boat. Q.—And Indian hunters? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember the total of your crew including the hunters? A.—Nineteen is the total, I think. q.—Where did you hunt in 1888? A.—I hunted particular^' outside on the coast here and up towards the Fair Weather grounds. Q.—Did you go to Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Before I ask you the particulars of your catch, will you tell me where the log or other books of the "Adda" are; have 3rou got them? A.—No, sir. Q.—What became of them? A.—They were lost on the schooner "Laura" on Nootka Sound. Q.—You entered Behring Sea that year about what time? A.—Somewhere about the 4th of July. Q.—How long did you stay there in that year, I knocked off sealing on the 8th of August. Q.—You left then? A.—No, I knocked off sealing. I lost a canoe and I went looking for it for about five or six days. Q.—Y'ou lost a canoe and you went hunting for it? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And you lost how many days? A.—It was a week before I got out of Behring Sea. Q.—Did you find the canoe? A.—No, sir. Q.—What was the consequence of that, on the other Indians? A.—They would not hunt any more. Q.—Was that canoe absolutely lost? A. picked up by another vessel. Q.—Y'ou were hunting in the Behring Sea that year on the 8th of August? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—Will you tell me how many seals you caught in Behring Sea that year? A.—I cannot exactly tell but I think I must have caught about 1,300 in Behring Sea. I caught 1,500 in 1880 altogether. Q.—What part of Behring Sea did you fish in that year? We will take the Pribyloff Islands as a starting point. Now in what direction did you hunt from the Pribyloff Islands? A.—The first part I was to the southward and westward. Q.—About what distance off? A.—About 60 or 70 miles. Q.—And the latter part, where were you? A.—A little to the east. Q.—How far east? A.—The direction was about nor-nor- west of Unimak Pass. Q.—And about what distance from the Pribyloff Islands? A.—150 miles at least. Q.—That was the history of your sealing in 1888? Yes, sir. Q.—Did you go sealing in 1889? A.—Yes, sir Q.—In what schooner? A.—The Adda. Q.—What number of canoes had you? A.—Seven canoes Q.—Was your crew the same as it was the 3*ear before? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—Where did you go sealing that year? A.—To the southward and westward of the Pribyloff Islands. Q.—Did you go to Behring Sea? A.—Y'es, dr. Q.—When did you enter the Behring Sea? A.—I think somewhere about the 8th July. Q.—And how long did you stay there? A.—Till the middle of August I think. Q.—What was your catch? A.—My catch that year was about 800. Q.—Was that in Behring Sea or altogether? A.—In Behring Sea. I got Haidah Indians from the Queen Charlotte Islands. Q.—You caught no seals on the coad? A.—No, I caught them all in Behring Sea. Q.—You gave as a reason that you had some particular kind of Indians? A.—Y'es, sir. Haidahs, from the Queen Charlotte Islands. Q.—Did you hunt on the coast at all? the coast in the spring. Q.—Did you catch any in the spring'' caught about 200. Q.—That is not included in the 800? Q.—You say you had Queen Charlotte Indians in the Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Is there any difference between them and the Indians you generally have? A.—Well, the Queen Charlotte Indians used guns altogether at that time. I do not know whether they might use spears now. We hunted on A.—Y'es, sir; -No. 20 30 40 So (Gustave Hansen—Direct*.) Q.—Which were the best Indians, the Indians that used spears or the Queen Charlotte Indians that used guns? A. A.—I think those who had the spears were the best. Q.—As a matter of fact, when you went out in 1889 had you as expert hunters as you had the year before? A.—No, sir, I had not. Q.—Did you ever hunt with these same Indians afterwards? A.—No, I did not take them any more. Q.—Why? A.-—One thing is that I could not get them to lower the boats on Sunday. Q.—And when they did lower the boats were they as good hunters as the others or were they not? A.—No, they were not as good. 1 think I had better chances that year than the year before, but these Indians would go out in the morning and when they caught 10, 12 or 15 seals, even if it was only 9 o'clock, they would come back and not go back any more, I could not persuade them to go out again. Q.—Your huuters in -1889 were not satisfactory? A.—No. Q.—And yon never tried them before, that was your first experience with them? A.—Yes. Q.—Why did you leave the Sea so early as the middle of August? A.—I could not do anything with the Indians, they would not hunt any more. Q.—In 1889 what part of the Sea did you hunt in? A.— Particularly to the southward and wedward and in the latter part of the year to the eastward. Q.—Is that generally speaking the same ground you hunted in the year before? A.—Yes, about the same ground. Q.—Did you go out in the year 1890? Q.—With the same number of canoes? dx canoes in 1890. A.—Yes, A.—Yes, sir. A.—I had only ame scnooner what Indiana had you? sir. A.—Kye>quot In- A.—Yes, sir. A.—Well, I think one or 6o Q.—And the Q.—This time dians. Q.—They understood spearing? Q.—Did they use guns at all? two Indians had guns. Q.—As a general rule did they use guns or spears? A.— Spears. Q._What time did you enter the Sea in 1890? A.—I do not remember when I entered the Sea exactly, but it was the beginning of July, between the 4th and 9th of July. Q.—How long did you stay there? A.—I stayed there until August. q.—What time in August? A.—I cannot exactly tell, but somewhere about the 12th. Q.—Can you tell me how many seals you caught in 1890? A.—No, sir, I do not remember. Q.—Was your catch large or small? A.—It was not big. I do not think I caught more than 500 or 600. Q.—In Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What reason do you put that down to? A.—The hunters I had were not any extra good. Q.—And what about the weather? A.—The weather was pretty rough, I think, in the first part of August. Q.—Whereabouts did you hunt that year? A.—Pretty near the same ground but more to the eastward, I think. Q.—Do you remember how far eastward you went that year, about what distance? A.—From 30 to 60 miles from Unimak. Q.—During all those years that you have been fishing, in 1888, 1889 and 1890, not to speak of other years, you have fished somewhere about the same place? A.—Pretty much, yes, sir. The schooner 20 30 (Gustave Hansen—Direct—Cross.) Q.—Why did you do that? A.—The first part of the sea son I was going to the westward until I heard of anything wrong, and then I went to the eastward. Q.—What was it that sent you to the eastward? A.—For safety to get out of the way of the cutter. Q.—I want you to show me, on the chart, where did you go to the eastward in 1890, what is the latitude and longitude of the spot you went to? A.—It is about 56 N. lat. and 165 W. long. Q.—That is the position where you went to? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Is that the place where you were in the habit of hunting seals before? A,—Yes, sir, I have been there formerly. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—How many years before 1888 had you hunted? A.—I started in 1879. Q.—What vessel did you start on? "Flying Mist," of San Francisco. Q.—In that year you were hunting on board? A.—I was second mate. Q.—In 1880 what vessel were you on? A.—On the same vessel. Q.—What position did you hold in that ship? A.—Second mate again. Q.—And in 1881 what vessel were you on? A.—I was on the schooner "Otter." Q.—What position did you hold? A.—Boat steerer. Q.—And in 1882 what were you? A.—I was hunter. Q— In what ship? A.—The "Alexander." Q-—And in 1883 what were you? A.—I was hunter on the "Adela." Q.—Were you hunting seals particularly? A.—Yes, sir, seals and otters both, Q.—And in 1884 what were you on? A.—I was hunter on the "Adela." Q.—Who was the mader? A.—Capt. Isaacson. Q.—And in 1885 what vessel were you on? A.—I was 4° captain and hunter of the "Adela." Q.—I suppose captain you are a pretty good shot, are you not? A.—Well, I don't know, sir; I would rather somebody else would tell you that than myself. Q.—You have been pretty fortunate every time you have been out hunting? A.—Yes, sir, I got my luck. Q.—And you generally got most every seal you shot? A.— No, I did not. Q.—You generally hit most every seal you shot at? A.— It is pretty hard to tell; it is hard to tell whether you hit them or not. Q.—In the first part of your hunting you only used the rifles and you did not use shot guns at all? A.—I used the rifles. Q.—With rifles you shoot at a much longer distance? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—You are a pretty good shot with a rifle? A.—I do not call myself a good shed, I stand a chance with some of them anyhow. Q.—But you had a good deal of experience? A.—I had a good deal of experience, yes, sir. q.—The vessels that you sealed in were from San Francisco? A.—The first going off, yes, sir; the "Flying Mist," the "Otter" and the "Alexander" all belonged to San Francisco. . Q.—They belonged to Liebes & Co? A.—The "Otter" and "Alexander" did, and the "Flying Mist" belonged to the Tibbetts Bros. Q.— Who owned the "Adela? A.—A firm in Yokohama.. 50 60 6i8 I .tfri t \>M Mm io 20 30 the "Adela?" master, and A.—I was fter that I (Gustave Hansen—Cross.) Q.—I suppose the accounts of the firms who owned these three ships you refer to will show how many seals you caught in these years? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were hunter one year in hunter two years and another man was master and hunter myself. Q.—How many seals do you think you shot yourself? A.— I do not know, that is very hard to state; I cannot tell. Q.—You have not had any later experience in shooting seals have you? A.—1 have been hunting every year until this year. Q.—You were always a hunter? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In the stern boat? A.—I was in the boat most of the time. Q,—You have always been very fortunate in later years in your shooting, have you not? A.—Yes, I have caught as much as anybody else, perhaps a little more sometimes. q.—who has "the record of the number of skins you took in later years? A.—I do not know that anybody has. Q.—Did you ever take any seals anywhere besides shooting them? A.—Yes, sir, I have. Q.—How? A.—With a club Q.—Where? A.—Ashore. Q.—Where? A.—I was on St. Paul Island in 1884 got seized and taken to San Francisco. Q.—Is that one of the Pribyloff Islands? A.—Yes, sir Q.—Did you ever land on the Pribyloff Islands again? Yes, sir. Q.—Did not you raid them in 1884? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did not you raid them in the "Otter" in 1881? ind A. The Commissioner on the part of the United States: should we spend any time on this? -Why -I want to show what kind of a witness they the United States:—The did raid the islands. : not there No, sir. in 1881. (To Mr. Lansing:- produce. The Commissioner on the part of 40 witness has ver3' frankly told you he Mr. Landng:—I am asking was he witness) Were you there in 1890? Q.—In November? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were you not seized by the Collector of Customs in 1890 for not making a proper entry, with 400 skins on board, and fined $1,000? A.—No, sir, I*was not fined $1,000. Q.—You never were fined by the Collector of Customs $1,- 000? A.—No, sir, not $1,000* 50 Q.—Well, $800? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You took about 400 skins in that raid? A.—No, sir. I did not. Q.—What time did you clear from this port to go up? A. I do not remember, sometime in September. Q.—Y'ou went up there in November seal hunting? A.— Up where? Q.—In Behring Sea? A.—No, I was not in Behring Sea. Q.—You were not in Behring Sea in 1890? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you make any entry of the catch in the Behring 60 Sea at the Custom House for the different years? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you separate your coast catch from the Behring Sea catch in making your entry? A.—We generally came back here to set out for the Behring Sea. Q.—Did you separate the Sand Point catch from the Behring Sea catch? A.—I never went into Sand Point. Q.—But you hunted on the way to Behring Sea didn't you? A.—Yes, sir. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—You made the statement, in answer to Mr. Lansing, that you did not go into Behring Sea in 1890, that only refers to the fall ? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You do not refer to the summer when you had been there? A.—No, sir. Q.—In 1890 you were not in Behring Sea in the fall? A. —No, I was not on that dde. Q.—You were not on the American side were you? A.— No, sir, no more than that I came and went, in coming back to southwards of the Aleutian Islands. The witness was further examined in reference to Claim No. 24, the schooner "Winnifred." sir. -Yes, Clarence N. Cox, re-called by Great Britain. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—I was examining you, Mr. Cox, with regard to the expenditures .on certain vessels which you had fitted out in the years 1890 and 1891 A.—1890 is the first vessel I fitted out. Q.—And you could not tell me from memory the amount of the expenditures? Q.—That is for provisions? A.—Yes, Q.—Have you looked at it since? . A. gone through the bills approximately. Q.—Give me approximately, for those two years? And in order to make it so it can easily be checked. A gentleman who is more familiar with the vouchers than this man will be produced here in court with the vouchers, and if my learned friend wants to go through with them he can. Witness:—1891, my provision bill was $1,832.28. Q.—For what schooner? A.—The big "Triumph." Q.—Give me the next one. A.—That was white men and the first year I had the Siwashes—Indians—would be 1893. My provision bill was $2,431. Q.—How many Indians? A.—I had 13 canoes and 26 Indians. Q.—And some white men besides? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many whitemen? A.—Four sailors, two mates, the cook and myself. Q.—And those are the only years you have got there? A. —The only years. 1 hadn't time to go through any further. ,a l i ill HI ill: (C. N. Cox- Duect—Cross. Emile Ramlas—Direct.) Q,—The jsame vessel one year carried white men and the other Indians? A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Adams in the office of E. B. Marvin & Company, can produce vouchers for each aud every year. By the Commissioner on the part of the United States: Q.—Captain Cox, does that differ from your estimate of $11 io and $6. Did 3rou figure that out to see? A.—Figuring this out relatively iu 1891 1 think the average come about $11.32. Q.—Substantially supports your statement? A.—Yes, sir. The Commisdoner on the part of the United States:—Is there -any occasion to spend any more time on the matter on mther side? Mr. Dickinson: your Honour. 20 40 50 reserved cross-examination 30 - The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Upon direct examination he dated about $11 and he supports it, and I merely asked the question whether it was necessary to spend any more time. Mr. Peters:—I want to ask him as to the average cost per man for the Indians. Witness:—An average of $8.94. That is, there are Indians and white men together; there were 26 Indians and eight white men on the vessel. Crss-examination by Mr, Warren: Q.—I do not think it appears in the examination as to the number of months the voyage is expected to cover. The Commissioner on the part of the'United States:—Why do you want to go into that, Mr. Warren? His figures sup-, port the figures brought out on direct examination. Mr. Warren:—I want to get the length of the voyage that is all, in 1891 and 1893. Mr. Dickinson:—That you fitted out for? Witness:—1891 was from January 15th. I was gone to August 1st. We figured it for seven months. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The question is, what time you fitted out for? Witness:—Seven months. Q—In 1893 what time did you figure for? A.—We figured for the 10th of January and 10th of September. Emile Ramlas, recalled on the part of Great Britain, being. 60 one of the six witnesses, to be called under the ruling of the court: Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—You were out sealing in 1888? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1889? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—1891? A.—Ye;s, sir. Q.—1892? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—1893? A.—Yes, sir. ii Q.—1894? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And this year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Y'ou have been engaged each and every year as a hunter? A.—Excepting this year. Q.—What year was it when your attention was first directed to the question of the seals shot and lost? A.—In which regard, as to sinking? Q.—Yes? A.—It was chiefly in 1892. Q.—How was it that your attention came to be elirected to that? A.—One of the cutters boarded us and the officer asked us how many seal usually sank and no one appeared to know excepting by guess work. Q.—That was in 1892? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—After that, what did you do? A.—After that I kept account. Q-—For your own satisfaction? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How did you keep that account? A.—On the books 20 (here (indicating.) Q.—Was it an account in reference to your own shooting? A.—My own shooting, yes, dr. Q.—Did those books, as a matter of fact, contain more than your own shooting? A.—One more hunter only. Q.—To what years do those books relate? A.—1893, 1894, 1895. Q.—What system did you adopt in order to keep a record of the seals lost by sinking after being shot by you? A.— The.first year I put down the figures what I missed and what 3° sunk. Q.—Going back over 1893 then turn to the first entry in this record? A.—April 1893. Q.—April is the first month in which you started this record? A.—The first month I sunk any seal that year. Q.—How many seals did you shoot in that month? A.— 164. Q.—And secured 164? A.—I got 164.„ Q.—How many did you shoot and lose? A.—I sunk three that month. Q.—And on what date did you shoot your first seals in that month? A.—On the 5th. Q.—You shot 14 on the 5th, was it? A.—Y'es, sir. Q.—Five on the 6th, five on the 10th, 25 on the 11th, six on the 12th, six on the 13th? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, on that day how many did you shoot and lose by sinking? A.—I got six and shot two more and sunk. them. Q.—On the 15th you shot and secured two, 17th six, 18th 20, 20th 11? A.—Yes, sir. q.—Now, on the 21st, you shot how many? A.—I got six. Q.—Did you shoot any more? A.—I sunk one. Q.—On the 22nd you shot 19 and secured them? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—23rd five, 26th 17, 28 13, 30th 4. So that out of that lot that month you lost only three that you shot? A.—Yes, sir, Q.—Have you another month in that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In the month of May you shot and secured 73, is that right? A.—Yes, sir. Q. And you shot at and lost by sinking 1? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That was on the 8th? A*.—Yes, sir. I got 73 and sunk one. Q._You shot 74 and secured 73, and lost one from sinking after being shot? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Take the next month, June. You shot and secured 17? A.—Y'es, sir. Q—Now, whafis the next. What year do you come to A.—1894. 'Oscar and Hattie." (Emile Ramlas—Direct—.Cross.) q.—Now in April, 1894, you shot 89 seals and secured 98? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Losing one from sinking after being shot? A.—That is correct. Q.—In May you shot 85 seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You secured 84 and you lost one from sinking after being shot? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Take the next month, June. You shot 102 seals, all told? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—And you lost none from sinking after being shot? A. None. Q.—August is the next month of 1894? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you lose any that you shot that month? A.—None at all. Q.—How many did you shoot? A.—26. Q.—And secured them all? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What in September? A.—September is out. Q.—The other record is given you by your fellow hunter, what is his name? A.—Hake. Q.—Where does he live? A.—Here in Victoria. Q.—Kept in the same way? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And is contained in that book? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—What is this year? A.—1895. Q.—You have a book for 1895 kept on the same plan? A. —Hardly the same. Different kind of book. Q.—Kept for the same object? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—-What is your first month in 1895? A.—March. • Q.—How many seals did you shoot? A.—28. Q.—Out of the 28 seals you shot how many were lost from sinking? A.—None. Q.—What is the next month? A.—April. Q.—How many seals did-you shoot in April? A.—101. Q.—Out of them how many were lost? A.—One. Q.—102 you shot and lost one securing 101? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What is ihe next month? A.—May. Q.—How many seals did you shoot in May? A.—45. Q.—Did you lose any? A.—No, sir. Q.—What is the* next month? A.—June. Q.—How many did you shoot in June? A.—21./ Q.—Did you lose any? A.—None. Q.—What is the next month? A.—July. I killed 30. Q.—How many did you lose from sinking? A.—None. Q.—August? A.—I "shot 54 and only got 50 of them. Q.—And lost the others how? A.—By sinking. Q.—After being shot? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What is the next month? A.—September. Q.—How many did you shoot in September? A.—I shot three . Q.—And sank two more? A.—I killed five and got three. Q.—Is that the end of your record? A.—That is the end of my record, yes, sir. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—Where were you shooting the seals in those years, Behring Sea altogether? A.—No, sir; on the coast, the Japan g0 coast and Copper Islands. Q.—Some of those years you were not allowed to shoot in Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—So that proportion does not apply to Behring Sea? A. —It didn't apply to Behring Sea. Q.—The number of seals you shot at and wounded and escaped are not included in that? A.—No, sir. Q.—That merely includes the seals wherever you may have shot them that were killed and sunk? A.—Yes, sir. 40 6o Q.—Y'ou are not able to date the proportion of seals that you shot at and wounded that afterwards escaped? A.—Of course I wouldn't Estate. This is what I seen. Q.—But there are seals that are shot at which escape? And I suppose seals are frequently wounded and get away? A.—It depends a good deal on the weather, I believe. Q.—You can answer that question. Is it frequent or not? A.—In some cases I can't say. Q.—Then it is sometimes frequent and sometimes not? A. —Certainly. Q.—What boat were you on in the year 1889? A.—I was in the "Annie C. Moore." Q.—What boat were you on in the year 1890? A.—I was in the "Triumph." Q.—Do you remember the total catch of the "Triumph" in 1890 in Behring Sea? A.—Between four and five hundred, I believe. Q.—What wa3 the tonnage of the "Annie C. Moore" that you were on In 1890? A.—I don't know exactly, over 100. Q.—About 125 tons, is she not ? A.—No, I don't think she is that much. Q.—How many boats did she carry in 1889? A.—Six boats and a stern boat. Q.—Howlong was she in the Sea? A.—I think we entered the Sea on the 7th of July. Q.—An'3 left when? A.—It must have been between the 20th and 25th of August. Q.—When did yon lower last in the Sea that year? A.—If I remember right, the 17th of August. Q.—You were not warned out in 1889? A.—No, sir. Q.—No vessels spoke you and told you that seizures were being made and drove you out for that reason ? A.—Not that I remember of. Q.—In 1888 I believe you were on the "Annie C. Moore?" A.—Yes, sir, I was. Q.—What time did you go into the Sea that year? A.—I think ii was the 20th of July. Q.—What time did you leave? A.—About the 20th of August, I believe. I am not certain of the date though. Q.—Are you just guessing at it? A.—Just what I can remember. Q.—You have some memory of it? A.—I have some memory of it, I know it was thereabouts. Q.—If you are guessing at it, I do not care to have you answer it. Q.—I don't remember the date. Q.—Very near the 20th? A.—It must have been very near the 20th, because you had finished your sealing season. Q.—What was the last you lowered in 1888? A.—I don't remember. Q.—Were yon warned out in 1888? A.—No, sir. Q.—You left Augnst 20th because you had finished your sealing season? A.—I don't know why the captain left. Q.—There was no special reason why you left that year, was there? A.—I had nothing to do with that part. Q.—You know whether there was any special reason or not? A.—I don't know anything about it. Q.—Was it good weather when,you left? A.—Nearly calm for two days before we got out through the Pass, and nearly calm for another day. Q.—Then a breeze sprang up and you came out? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Had you any bad weather just before the calm? A.— Not that I remember of. ■&sa innsii lijUy. 20 30 40 50 60 (Emile Ramlas—Cross—Re-direct.) Q.—How many boats did the "Annie C. Moore" have in the Sea in the year 1888? A.—Six. Q.—How large a crew, do you remember? A.—Well, it would be three men to a boat, captain and cook and mate and a spare hand. Q,—About 23 men that trip? A.—I suppose about that? Q.—Do you remember how many skins the "Annie C. . Moore" took in Behring Sea in the year 1888? A.—Somewhere about 700, a few over, I believe. Q.—715 was it not? A.—Something like that. Q.—Had white hunters in 1888? And in these other years when you were on the "Annie C. Moore?" A.—Yes, sir. Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—I think you said Captain Hackett was captain in 1888? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Who in 1889? A.—Captain Hackett. Q.—How were your provisions in 1888 when you left the Sea. Do you remember how they were lasting, had you sufficient to remain longer? A.—I know in 1888 we were short. Q.—Have you any recollection about the provisions in 1888? A.—I don't remember. Q.—How was the sealing in 1888? When you stopped, were you making good catches or poor? A.—I can't hardly remember. Q.—Can you in 1889? In 1889 we had over 1,200. Q.—How was the sealing at the time you left? A.—I don't remember. Q.—Did you state when you came out in 1890? A.—I think on the 25th of August. Q.—Do you remember anything about the sealing at that time? A.—It was a poor year with us. Q.—What was the condition of the weather? A.—We had bad weather. Q.—Who was your captain in 1890? A.—Clarence Cox. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—When I asked j'ou as to 1889 you did not remember that you were short of provisions when you came out? A.— I don't know that that was the reason. Q.—You do not say that that is the reason for your coming out? A.—I don't say that that is the reason. Sir C. H. Tupper:—My learned friend does not understand that. The witness did not say to me that the reason was they were.short of provisions, but I asked him as a matter of fact whether they were short of provisions. The Commisdoner on the part of Her Majesty:—That is as I understood it. Of course it opened to Mr. Warren to say that, if there was that fact, the witness ought to have known that it was a sufficient reason. Q.—Now, witness, the boat was equipped for about that voyage, was she not? A.—I don't know; I had nothing to do with that. Q.—If the provisions ran out she mud have been? A.— I suppose so. Q.—And that was about the usual voyage in Behring Sea? A.—I was there until the 25th of August; that was the longest 1 have been there excepting this year. James Munger was called as a witness in rebuttal on the part of Great Britain, and examined out of order by consent of counsel. Mr. Bodwell:—I now refer to page 377 of the eddence, being a part of the direct examination of John Cotsford, beginning at line 16. I propose to read this evidence to the witness and ask him if he has anything to say about it. The Commisdoner on the part of the United States:—That is hardly usual, Mr. Bodwell; why not go on and examine him in the usual way? Mr. Bodwell:—Very well. (To witness.) Q.—Do you know anything about the quantity of provisions that were on board the "Carolena" shortly before the seizure? Mr. Dickinson:—There is no tedimony of Cotsford on that question, except that there was a rumor on board that they might, if they stayed, run short of provisions. Mr. Bodwell:—I propose to ask him the question and then ask him if there was any rumor. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Of what consequence is it, anyway? Mr. Bodwell:—There is an inference to be drawn from that statement of Cotsford's that I wish to remove. The Commisdoner on the part of the United States:—Why do you not simply ask him if there was any such rumor and leave it there. Mr. Cotsford did not undertake to state the amount of provisions on board. Mr. Dickinson:—Of course we were careful in calling the witness Cotdord, as well as every one connected with the owners of this ship, though we wanted to get as full information as we could by calling witnesses both hostile and friendly—but we were pretty careful about being bound by a statement of Cotsford's. I remember distinctly this was a part of my policy, for the reason that he might have got his statement and impressions from others. Mr. Bodwell:—I have the question here, and I will read the question and answer if your Honours would like to hear it: "Q.—Do you know anything about what the time Captain Ogilvie, or did you hear anything about the time he was preparing to leave the sea? A.—Somewhere about the 20th or 23rd of August, I believe. "Q.—Did you hear that from the Captain? A.—That is about the time it was understood we would start to go home; 1 think we got >'t from the Captain. "Q.—What makes you remember the time that he talked of leaving the sea? A.—I suppose on account of talking years afterwards about whai time we started home. "Did you hear anything said about the providons on board? A.—There was a remark passed that if we stayed to that time we were liable to be short of provisions going home 40 IO 20 30 40 50 60 626 (James Munger—Direct.) —who started the yarn I don't know, but it started aboard by some one." (To witness. Q.—Was there any common report on board the ship that there was likely to be a shortage of provisions? A.—I never heard any. Q.—As a matter of fact, what about the quantity of provisions were there on board? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Does that rebut; we ought not to take so much time, Mr. Bodwell, with a question of this sort. Mr. Bodwell:—The fact of the quantity of provisions that we say was on board is a material fact. Mr. Dickinson:—In the interest of shortening time;—if they are to open their case from time to time in chief I do not know where we are to land. I do not want to take the time nor fill the record with rebuttal and sur-rebuttal. Mr. Munsie is owner of this ship and claims through the British Government. He has testified upon the stand in chief as. to the epjantity of provisions aboard, fully and to his heart's content, and has been fully cross-examined. To explain his reasons why he could not support his testimony in chief he said he could not get the other men that were on. the ship—named them all over—some dead and some he could not get, and among those was Cotsford, Russell and this man; and I call your Honours' attention to the fact that he said he did not know where Cotsford was, and did not know where Russell was, and thus explained why he was not corroborated by some one aboard the ship. Now, when we find a man and produce him, then he goes on to make that a part of his case, which he should have made in chief. He was an interested witness, and presumably men like this witness were not interested. He should have corroborated his testimony in chief as to the amount of provisions on board, and not have waited until we attacked his case, and, as we believe, broken it down on cross-examination. This evidence, it seems to us, supplements his main case, and is not at all in the nature of rebuttal evidence. Mr. Bodwell:—I submit that this is not a correct way to put the matter. In the first place, we proved by vouchers that there was a certain amount of provisions put on board that ship. The defense says that cannot be so because, when she landed at Ounalaska, there was only a certain amount, as inventoried, 'taken by the officer who went on board, and then, in corroboration of that statement, they bring the witness Cotsford <o swear in direct examination that there was a rumor on board that the provisions would run short. This witness disproves that rumor as a fact, and he also rebuts the presumption made by the defense that there was not a sufficient quantity of provisions on board by showing that at the time of the seizure the ship was well provisioned. With reference to this witness not being here before I have in my hand a returned dead letter, written to him at Seattle, post-marked November 13th. I got some information about this witness and we sent a man to Seattle, who found him and brought him over. Here is the letter and I will ask this witness to open it. I say that Mr. Munsie's statement is exactly correct. He stated that, he had sent for the witness and had not heard from him, and that is perfectly true. (To witness.) Q.—What is the date of that letter? A.— (Examining.)—The letter is written on the 12th of November. Q.—Addressed to you? A,—Yes, sir. Q.—At Seattle? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You never got it? A.—No, sir, propose to show you why he makes that 3o The Commissioner on the part of the United States: What was this man's place aboard the vessel? Mr. Bodwell:—He was a boat steerer. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Has he personal knowledge of the amount of provisions on board of that vessel? Mr. Bodwell :- statement. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand Mr. Dickinson to say that if you apply to the Court on the ground that you were, through some midake, unable to procure the witness in order, he does not raise ob- 20 jection. Mr. Dickinson:—Not exactly, your Honour; I said they had taken an entirely different ground. As to getting the witness there may be a question of diligence. Mr. Peters argued this point, but through a misunderstanding his remarks were not taken down by the reporter. The substance of them, however, appear further on. Mr. Peters:—1 dmply produced that letter in answer to the suggestion of Mr. Dickinson that Mr. Munsie's statement that he could not get the witness is incorrect. I know what is in the letter; it was sent according to the best information he had and was -returned from the dead-letter office. Afterwards we sent a man over to hunt him up, when we found how this thing was treneling. Mr. Bodwell: (To witness,) Q.—Do you know anything about the state of the provisions on bpard the "Carolena," jud about the time of the seizure and speaking of the period before the seizure. (Objected to b3' Mr. Dickinson.) Mr. Bodwell:—I think it has been ruled that this question could be asked. Mr. Dickinson:—Not yet. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The Commissioners agree, Mr. Bodwell, that you must limit your rebuttal to the time when your inventory was taken. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I do not think that in rebuttal you can go into the question as to whether or not there were provisions on be>ard. It would have been another thing if you had sought to get the evidence in on the ground that you had tried to get the witness and could not get him, but I understand that ground of offering it is expressly withdrawn. Mr. Bodwell:—Do I understand your Honour to say this: That we hadng proved a quantity of provisions on board the ship, the defence having given evidence that at a certain time in the voyage there was not a large quantity of provisions on board—the inference being that if their case is true ours is incorrect—that we are not allowed in rebuttal to prove that, at the time of which we speak, the ship was well provisioned? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majedy:—Cotsford does not speak, as a matter of fact, as to whether there were provisions. 40 50 60 628 io 20 30 40 50 60 (James Munger—Direct.) Mr. Peters:—Cotsford is not the only witness, because they also bring in the witness Raynor, who testified that he only saw on board the ship a certain number of boxes of biscuit and a few bags of flour. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—How long before your vessel was at Ounalaska does your question now relate to? You can ask as to the quantity of provisions on board the vessel at Ounalaska, but. as I understand it, you are asking as to the quanta of provisions on board at the time of which Cotsford was speaking. Mr. Bodwell:—No, the question I put, your Honour, was this: "Just about the time of the seizure, and limiting your reply to a date before the seizure, what was the quantity of provisions on board the ship?" Mr. Dickinson:—Can they prove, if your Honour will bear with me a moment, in rebuttal, the amount of provisions on board the ship at Ounalaska. It is a part of their case to show the property seized, and of course the gist of the inquiry is the amount that was seized. They in chief show that the United States took in the seizure such a quantity of provisions- They put in their testimony in chief to satisfy the minds of the Commissioners that the United States seized that quantity of provisions. We meet it by the testimony of Mr. Raynor—Mr. Raynor being present at the time and place of taking the inventory—that there was only such and such quantity of provisions seized. Now, can it be true, that they can, after putting in their testimony in chief on the direct issue, come in again and rebut by saying that notwithstanding we put in the proof of what was there, then we will corroborate our testimony in chief by showing the amount of provisions on board at the time, not in contradiction of Mr. Raynor, that they could say that Mr. Raynor was not present when the inventory was taken, that would be rebuttal; but it is not rebuttal to call the witness upon the same point that they could have made in chief as to the quantity of provisions without reference to Raynor or anv other witness that we called. Mr. Peters:—We differ on this very materially. I submit that the contention that, my learned friend has pressed upon the Commission really amounts to this: That we may be allowed to rebut certain facts, but we may not be allowed to rebut the alleged case made by the defence. Now, what is the case. Our case was that we put on board at Victoria a certain amount of goods, and as the ship went to Behring Sea and afterwards was -seized, we asked you to assume that a very large proportion of those goods remained on board that ship when she got to Ounalaska. But how do they assume to meet that case? Tliey assume to meet it by throwing out suggestions that something must have happened between times, thereby assuming that in some other way, either by trading or in some other way, those goods were taken from the ship and were not on board of her when she was seized and taren to Ounalaska. How do they attempt to support that? They attempt to do so by a witness named Raynor and a witness named Cotsford, and the cross-examination of our witnesses, showing that. Munsie had a trading post. The3T bring in Cotsford as one witness, and they say what Cotsford says, that at a certain time on that voyage there was a rumor exidant on the ship thai the provisions were short. Now, what does my learned friend say? He says you can rebut that by simply showing by another witness that this rumor did not exist, and, as I said before, how does that leave, 3rou? With witness A saying the rumor existed and witness B say- IO 20 30 629 (James Munger—Discussion.) ing the rumor did not exist. It leaves you jud as my learned friend says you are left by affidavits of the British and American case, one affidavit showing one thing and another affidavit showing another. What are you to do in a case of that kind? Surely, anything which will tend to show that the statement of one witness was more probable than the statement of the other witness is admissible. We are not bound to the mere contradiction of the words that the witness said, or the existence of a rumor which the witness said, but we can give evidence, I submit, which goes to show that the contention of our witness is the most probable contention, and to rebut, not merely the datement that witness made, but the whole case that the defence on that point has made. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—They do not make the case. You make it, in two ways. In the first place you make the case for certain purposes as to the amount of supplies taken aboard at Victoria, but your principal case is for the amount of supplies that were seized, your claim againd the United States for the provisions seized. Mr. Peters:—We never for a moment admitted that that inventory was correct, and we propose to prove that it was not correct. Mr. Peters:—But we contend this: Being unable to give exact evidence of the amount of provisions on board that ship, we had to do the best we could; we had to prove as to the amount of provisions she had on board originally, leaving the Court to come to the presumption that a certain amount of provisions remained on board at the time of the seizure. Mr. Dickinson:—I desire to ask my learned friend this quedion: Whether, after this testimony goes in on the point as to the provisions that were on there before the seizure, 3'ou would consent to the proposition that we might then rebut that statement, which isa new statement, by putting on another line of witnesses to show that this witness was in- 40 correct? Mr. Peters:—We put this evidence forward and we feel that in doing so that it is evidence that is material. I do feel that the way the matter stands at the present our case requires that this particular piece of evidence should be allowed to go in and all the facts connected with it. The Commissioner on the part of Her- Majesty:—Why should you not seek to get the testimony on the ground that „ it was not obtainable before? 5° Mr. Peters:—I do not wish to put it on that narrow ground, although I would like to meet any suggestion made by the Commissioners. I would rather put it in on the ground that this a fair matter in rebuttal, not of a particular statement but of their case. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—If they have given evidence to show that providons have been put on board another ship and meanwhile landed in another place, that would be a fact you could not anticipate in your main case, and you might on rebuttal meet that new statement; but when the statement is that you had only a certain quantity of provisions at the point of seizure, the question might be whether that is something that you could not reasonably have anticipated in your original case, and whether you ought not to have adduced your evidence at that time; because the point of seizure was a point that may not have 60 'ii.^suAm^j.» ,iu*aa 111 WW Ji-'j'lf,;! 1§ IO 630 (James Munger—Discussion.) been in your mind, and the evidence bearing on that would be evidence that you would reasonably expect you might be called on to produce as in your knowledge. It seems to me," just now, that the adducing of the evidence by you bearing on the quantity of goods that you had at the time of seizure might, perhaps, be open fairly to the observations made by Mr. Dickinson. You could have anticipated it, and therefore you ought to have produced your witnesses. Mr. Peters:—By no posdbility could we anticipate the fact that a witness named Cotsford was coming here to start a rumor about which we never heard until we came to court. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—And of course you are allowed to rebut that. Mr. Peters:—Am I to leave the Court in this position, that one man swearing to a rumor and another man swearing there was no such rumor, have I not the right to rebut the 20 presumption that not only did the rumor not exist but in fact there was no foundation for it. Mr. Dickinson:—It became material for them to show in this main case that they could have caught a large number of seals after their seizure. Now, the context shows that we did not call out on the points we are now discussing this talk about the rumor, except as the method of fixing it in the mind of the witness the date they proposed to leave the sea. Cotsford upon this point was called on the question of when 3° they proposed to leave the sea, and he said on the 25th of August, or the 26th, as the case may be. They put in the main case and we put Cotdord on. They show that they could have caught seals up to the 1st of September, as part of their case, and they claim profits on the probable catch. Cotsford swore distinctly on direct examination that they proposed to leave on the 26th. We pressed him, as the context shows, without knowing what his answer would be, to faden that as a fact, by asking him what made him fix that date. It does not show that we asked him what providons were on board. A date is so elusive in the mind of an ordinary witness that counsel, in fixing a date which is material, will always naturally call out from the witness how he gets that in his head. It was a direct contradiction of the case of Great Britain as to the time when the ship was to leave the sea. Now, the context was to show how were you about to fix that date is there anything in your mind which fixes the date? He then volunteered the statement that there was a rumor as to the shortness of the provisions. 40 50 60 Mr. Peters:—The context shows that Mr. Dickinson had asked questions as to the date when they were going to leave the sea, but it also shows that this question was brought out in anwer to a direct open question: "Q.—Did you hear anything said about the provisions on board? A.—There was a remark passed that if we stayed to that time we were liable to be short of provisions going home; who started the yarn I don't know, but it started aboard by some one." The whole context shows that Mr. Dickinson had a special statement he wished to bring out and he put the question in that view. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I have already expressed an opinion that I thought that Mr. Peters had gone about as far as he could in the' line of the rumor that the witness Cotsford said existed. I cannot say that his subsequent argument has not to some extent shaken my mind. I am not sure that if one witness savs there was a ru- IO 631 (James Munger—Direct.) mor and another says there was not, and they were both in way of knowing whether there was or not, if there was a state of things which would corroborate the rumor, or prove it entirely untrue, that might not be given in evideuce in connection with the circumstances upon which the rumor might be considered to have started, or which would tend to an utter denial of the possibility of the starting of such a rumor. I must say that I feel embarrassed to some extent by having expressed an opinion adverse to the view of Mr. Peters on that point. I am not sure but there is a good deal in the view that he puts forward, but until conference with my learned brother I shall retain the opinion that I have expressed, and think that the witness has been asked as far as he can be upon that point when he adduced solely for the purpose of rebuttal. The Commissioners then rose. 20 30 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America- Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria/.December 21,1896. James Munger.—Examination of this witness was continued from the dtting of Saturday. 4° SO 60 Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Were an3r provisions transferred from the "Carolena" to the "St. Paul?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—At Ounalaska before the "St. Paul " left for San Francisco? A.—Yes. Q.—You were One of the crew who were sent down on the "St. Paul?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know what pilot bread is? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was any of that taken on board the "St. Paul," do you know? A.—I remember there was some. Q.—How do you remember that? A.—We ate a few when we were going down. Q.—Were you on board of the "Carolena" when she arrived at Clayoquot on her way up? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—It has been stated that Mr. Bechtel was on board at the time she went up—is that correct? A.—Yes, he went up with us. Q.—Did you hear him give any orders or directions on the way up or after the vessel arrived at Clayoquot, or while you stayed there, with reference to the vessel, her voyage, or any work that was done about the vessel, or in referenc to the canoes while you were at Clayoquot? A.—No, sir. Q.—Do you remember seeing any canoes? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When you first arrived? A.;—When I first got ashore they were there. Q.—Where were they? A.—On the bank. Q.—Did you see anything done with reference to the can- noes while you were there? A.—Yes. Q.—What was done? A.—They put ribs into them, because white men were going into them, and they wanted to make them staunch. Q.—Who was in charge of that work? A.—Ed. Shields. Q.—Did Mr. Bechtel have anything to do with it or give any orders about it. 632 (James Munger—Direct—Cross.) Mr. Dickinson:—I object to that quetsion. Mr. Bodwell:—Very well. (To witness.) Q.—How long did Mr. Bechtel stay there, do you know? A.—I can't tell; 1 don't know. He went away to some place, I know. IU 20 IO Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Where were you born? A.—Australia; at Sydney. Q.—What is your age? A.—Thirty years in May. Q.—Next May? A.—Yes. Q.—When did you come to Victoria? A.—I do not know. Q.—You were here in 1886? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you ever go sealing before 1886 A—No, dr. Q-—Do you know how many years you had been in Victoria in 1886? A.—I cant' tell you that. Q.—You cannot tell exactly, you say; can you tell about? A.—I was two years old when I came to San Francisco. Q.—I am asldng about Victoria. Confine yourself to answering my question if you can. How long had you been in Victoria in 1886 when you went on the "Carolena?" A.— Twelve or fifteen years. Q.—What was your business before you went on the "Carolena?" A.—I was an iron moulder. Q.—Is that right now? A.—That is right; I was an iron and brass moulder. Q.—Were you not keeping a bar in this town? A.—Not before that. Q.—Not before you went on the "Carolena?" A.—No. Q.—And you never had been sailing before? A.—No. Q.—Where were you an iron and brass moulder? A.— The Albion Iron Works. Q.—Who employed you? A.—A man named Spratt. Q.—Where is he? A.—He is dead. Q.—Did any one else ever employ you as a moulder here? A.—Yes, the company after that. Q.—Who is the manager of the company that employed 30 40 you! A.—I think Bullen was the manager. So 60 Q.—Who employed you? A.—A man named Demmick. Q.—You never had been to sea before except when you came from Australia; you had never been before you went on the "Carolena?" A.—No. Q.—What led you to go on board the "Carolena?" A.— For my health. Q.—Who employed you to go on the "Carolena?" A.— Mr. Munsie. Q.—Who spoke to you about going on the "Carolena"? A. —Mr. Munsie. Q.—Any one else? A.—No. Q.—Did you have any relatives in Victoria? A.—Lots of them. Q.—Are you a married man? A.—Yes, sir. q.—who is your wife? A.—Captain Campbell's daughter. Q.—You have a sister here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Whom did she marry? A.—Mr. Bechtel. Q._,\. J. Bechtel or J. A. Bechtel? A.—J. A. Bechtel or A. J. Bechtel. Q.—And you are not quite positive who your sister married? A.—Yes I am. q.—Well who was it? A.—Andrew J. Bechtel, "Andrew Bechtel or J. A. Bechtel. Q.—When did he marry your sister? A.—About eighteen years ago. Q.—You had nothing to do with Bechtel about going on this vessel? A.—No. Q.—He never spoke to you about it? A.—No; I told him I was going. Q.—Where did you tell him? A.—I think it was on the treet or near the hotel. Q.^-Did he tell you that he was going too? A.—I don't know about that. Q.—You did not know that Bechtel was going until you went on the ship? A.—Not until the day we went down. Q.—How did Mr. Munsie find out that you wanted to go on the ship for your health? A.—I told him I would like to go sealing. Q.—You went and told that to Mr. Munsie? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you never spoke to your brother-in-law about your desire to go sealing? A.—No. Q.—Were you frequently at his house to see your sister? 2Q A.—Not frequently. Q.—Are you on good terms with your brother-in-law and your sister? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Yet you never mentioned the fact to Bechtel that you would like to go sealing for your health? A.—Never. Q.—Nor to your sister, nor to your brother-in-law? A.— No. Q.—You are keeping a bar now? A.—I am working for a salary. Q.—Answer my question. You are tending a bar over 30 in Seattle? A.—Yes. Q.—In what place? A.—The Sartoria Company. Q.—Is it a saloon? A.—It is; wholesale and retail. Q.—And a bar in it? A.—Yes. Q.—A retail bar? A.—Yes. Q.—'And you attend to the retail bar? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you ever attend bar for your brother-in-law? .— I did. Q.—When? A.—Seven or eight years ago. Q.—That is since you came back from the "Carolena" trip? 40 A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You never went on a sealing trip again? A.—No. Q.—Nor sailing in any capacity? A.—No. Q.—And you kept bar for Bechtel at the old Colonial? A.—No. Q.—Where then? A.—The Delmonico. Q.—What sort of a place is that? A.—Tt was at that time a nic« place. Q.—Is it still running? A.—I think so; I have not been in. Q.—You said it was "at the time a nice place," do you mean by that it is a little off color now? A.—I do not know. Q.—What sort of a place was it? Was it a hotel? A.— An hotel and bar. Q.—And how many rooms in that hotel? A.—About 40, I think. Q.—Whereabouts was that place? A.—It was on Government street. Q.—Did you keep a bar anywhere else in this town? A.— 'es. Q.—Where? A.—Garrick's Head. Q.—Who was the owner? A.—A man named Spencer. Q.—When did you go to Seattle? A.—About three and a half years ago. Q.—Did you lose your place? A.—No. Q.—How did you come to leave your brother-in-law? A.— I thought I could do better, I took a rest at that time; he was about to sell but, and I had another offer. "(JJ_ _K!Lll£ 30 634 (James Munger—Cross.) Q.—-Where were you when you went to Seattle? A.—No place. Q.—You were doing nothing? A.—No. Q.—When yon were idle did you see much of your sister and your brother-in-law? A.—No, not very much. Q.—I think you said that you had a large number of relatives here.? A.—Yes, sir. j0 Q.—Did you see much of Mr. Munsie? A.—No, sir. Q.—Was he in your place sometimes? A.—No. .Q.—He never came in to talk to you about this case? A.— No. Q.—And did not talk to you about it before vou went to Seattle? A.—No. Q.—I suppose your family here knew where you were in Seattle? A.—I diu't tell anyone I was going. Q.—Your wife and relatives knew where you were? A.— Yes, sir. 20 Q.—And everyone of your intimate friends and relatives knew where you were? A.—Yes, there was no secret about it. Q.—Did anyone see you about coming over here? A.— Yes. Q.—Prior to this last week? A.—On Friday. Q.—Before that? A.—No. I will take that back, there was a man over there. Q.—When? A.—About eight days ago. Q.—Did he claim to be from Mr. Munsie? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And then another man came over to you this last week? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you know the name of the man who came over to you the first time? A.—Yes. Q.—Did he have any difficulty in finding you? A.—A little bit; not much. Q.—Everyone knew where you were? A.—They could easily find out. Q.—Your family knew your address in Seattle? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—And Mr .Bechtel knew it? A.—Yes. Q.—Was there anything said to you by the man who came over to you eight days ago about Mr. Bechtel being on the "Carolena" when she sailed? A.—No. Q.—Nothing was said about it? A.—No. Q.—Did anyone come to see 3'ou about this case before the man who was there eight days ago? A.—No. Q.—Had he any talk with you about it? A.—No. Q.—Not before—you are clear about, that? A-—Not be- 50 fore. Q.—Did you ever talk.to anyone of Mr. Munsie before that? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you ever talk to Mr. Munsie about the case at all? A.—No. Q.—Not about his loss? A.—No. Q.—And not about the "Carolena" being seized? A.—No. Q.—You were in his employ after you came back from the "Carolena"—when the "Carolena" was seized you came back here an dwent into his employ as bar-keeper? A.—Not Mr. 60 Munsie's, Mr. Bechtel's. Q.—Did you ever talk to Bechtel about it? A.—The only thing I said to him was that I would like to get some money out of him. Q.—You said that to Bechtel? A.—No. Q.—Who did you say it to, then? A.—It might have been Munsie. There were two or three present at the time. Q.—What two or three? A.—Carne and Munsie. 40 (James Munger—Cross.) Q_Was it in the bar room? A.—I don't know whether it was in the bar room or not, it was ten years ago. Q.—Carne, Munsie and Bechtel were there? A.—No, I don't think Bechtel was there. Q.—It is a little bit longer than ten years, eleven years? A.—Somewhere about that. Q.—Your attention was never, called to the matter except you said you would like to get some money out of it—is that right? A.—At that time I said that. Q.—What time? A.—About ten years ago. Q.—Then you have not had your attention called to the matter, or to any of the details of it for about ten or eleven years? A.—That is right; he said it would be settled some day. Q.—Who said that? A.—Munsie. Q.—Was Bechtel present? A.—He might have been but I was not talking to him about it^ Q.—You are very positive that Bechtel was not talking to Munsie about it?' A.—No, sir. Q.—You did not hear that Bechtel was claimed to have been part owner with Munsie in the "Carolena?" A.—I never heard that. Q.—You never heard that since the seizure of the "Carolena? A.—No, I never heard it. Q.—You never heard of any intimation to that effect? A.—No. Q.—And you did not know until you came here, and you have not heard it yet? A.—No. Q.—Never? A.—Never heard it. Q.—Did you know that Bechtel had any mortgage on the "Carolena?" A.—No, I never heard that. Q.—You did not know that your brother-in-law had a mortgage? A.—I never heard of it. I did not know, nor do not know. Q.—Nor any interest in her? A.—No. Q.—You never had the slightest idea that Bechtel had the slightest interest in the "Carolena?" A.—No. Q.—Or in her voyage? A.—No. Q.—Your attention never having been called to it before, what makes you remember that there was any report about the provisions on the "Carolena" just before she was seized? You remember that? A.—I remember that they said that they wanted to go home about the end of the month on account of the weather, and that the vessel was not any too big, and they said they would go home on account of the weather. Q.—About the end of the month? A.—Yes. Q.—You remember that conversation? A.—The captain tolel me that. Q.—Ten or eleven years ago the matter of mentioning the provisions was not a particularly important matter to you ? A.—No. Q-—You had no fear.that the provisions were short? A- know that there was a whole lot of provisions. Q-—The ship was full of provisions? A.—Yes, we could hardly get arouud on account of them. Q.—She was so full of providons that you could not get around? A.—Yes. Q.—The provisions were piled up on every side when you went into the hold? A.—Yes. Q.—There were great quantities of pilot bread and barrels of pork and barrels of sugar—everything included in the provisions? A.—Lots of food. Q.—So that you were naturally impressed when you heard last Saturday that'there was a rumor that it had been testi- (James Munger—Cross.) fled to that they were short of provisions, and your mind reverted to ten or eleven years ago when you were on the ship, and you remembered that there was no conversation about that? A.—No conversation about the provisions being short. Q.—Did you ever hear anything said about the provisions being abundant? A.—When they started out? Q.—No, when they were in the Sea? A.—Well, no; there io was always lots; I always had lots to eat. Q.—You never heard anything at all about there being lots of provisions on board A.—No, I knew that there were lots of provisions. Q.—At this time when you were in Behring Sea, when there was a remark about the provisions being short, did you ever hear about the providons being abundant? A.—The matter never came up. Q.—Do you remember any other conversation held on any other subject within a week before you were seized? A.— 20 About going home, yes. Q.—That is all you heard? A.—Yes, about going home at the end of the month on account of the weather. Q.—Who did you hear talking about that? A.—Captain Ogilvie. Q.—Did you hear any of the crew speak about that besides the captain? A.—The mate. Q.—Did any of the men—hunters or steerers—speak of it? A.—My hunter talked of it to me. Q.—You remember that—you remember that your particular hunter talked to you about going home? A.—Yes. Q.—What did he say? A.—He said that the vessel was not any too big, and that we had better start home about the end of the month. Q.—Will you swear whether they said "about the end of the month" or "20th August?" A.—No. Q.—You could not say which? A.—No; not as to the date. Q.—It might have been that they said that they were going about the 20th? A.—I do not know. Q.—Where were you when the provisions were taken off the "Carolena" to go on board the '•'St. Paul?" A.—I was on the dock. Q.—Where was the "Carolena?" A.—She was laying off a few hundred yards. Q.—And you had come ashore about how long before that? A.—Jud before she sailed. Q.—Just before the "St. Paul" sailed you had been on board the "Carolena?" A.—Yes. Q.—You had gone ashore from the "Carolena" just before the "St. Paul" sailed? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you remember that date? A.—No. Q.—Who tool: those provisions off the "Carolena?" I do not know. Q.—You did not hear any one say anything about it? The boys said they put some grub on board. Q.—Did you see pilot bread brought on board the 30 40 5o 60 A. A.— "St. Paul?" A.—I do not think so. I might not have seen it going on board. Q.—You did not know the old pilot bread of the "Carolena" when you saw it on board the "St. Paul"? A.—I did not know that it was the same, but it was there all right. Q.—You do not know that it was the same pilot bread that was on the "Carolena"'? A.—No, I can't swear as to that. Q.—You did not see a boat leave the "Carolena" and go to the "St. Paul"? A.—I saw the boat leave there. Q.—Did you see her go to the "St. Paul"? A.—She just went to the dock. Q.—Did j'ou see provisions that came out of the boat coming from the "Carolena" and put on to the "St. Paul"? A.— Well, not direct. Q.—The fact is that 3-011 saw some pilot bread on board, and you heard it said at some time that some provisions were taken off the "Carolena" and put on the "St. Paul" ? A.—I heard them say that. 10 Q.—Heard who say that?' A.—The boys, the crowd. Q.—The fact is you do not.know that the provisions were taken off the "Carolena" and put on the "St. Paul," except by what you were told? A.—No. Q.—Did you see them taken off the "Carolena" and put on board the "St. Paul"? A.—Not direct. Q.—Do you know about it in any other way except what you have heard? A.—I know it because I eat some of the crackers. Q.—Did you recognize the crackers? A.—I do not know. 20 Q —Did you recognize the pilot bread of the "Carolena" on board the "St. Paul"? A.—I thought it was the same pilot bread. Q.—Had you eaten of that pilot bread on the ship? A.— Yes, we eat it, some of it. Q.—And you would eat it in your boats frequently? A.— Yes. Q.—Did you eat it on the "Carolena?" A.—It tasted better on the "Carolena." Q.—Do not be funny, because I will not have it; you are 3° under oath. Did you eat it on the "Carolena"? A.—Yes. Q.—You eat it on the "CaroIena'r~*ahd in the boats? A.— Both. Q.—How did you recognize it on the "St. Paul"? A.—I thought it was the same. Q.—Because of the tade? A.—Well, it tasted a little better on the "St. Paul." Q.—Did you recognize the packages the bread was in? A. —They were in square boxes. 40 Q*—Did you ever see an3r pilot bread that did not come in square boxes? A.—No. Q.—Now, did you recognize anything else on the "St. Paul" that came from the "Carolena"? A.—No, only from the cook house. Q.—What did you recognizet from the cook house? A.— Meat of some kind. Q.—Did you recognize this as coming from the "Carolena"? A.—No. Q.—There is nothing else that you recognized except the 50 taste of the pilot'bread? A.—That is all. Q.—Were you on the "Carolena" when the United States officer came on board? A.—Yes. Q.—Did he take any inventory then? A.—No. Q.—Were you there when he did take an inventory? A.— No. Q.—You did notTsee him going about taking the inventory of the large amount of provisions that you saw in the hold of the "Carolena"? A.—No. Q.—You did not see him going into the hold? A.—No. Go Q.—Will you tell us, Mr. Munger, how long after you got- into Ounalaska did you leave on the "St. Paul"? A.—About a week I think. Q.—And you staved on the "Carolena" all that time? A.— No. Q.—Had you been ashore? A.—Yes. O.—Back and forth? A.—Yes, out fishing. Q.—Did you see any officer of the- revenue cutter "Rush" coming on board when you were at Ounalaska? A,—No, 638 (James Munger—Cross.) Q.—When you were seized did you see the officer come on board? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You saw no United States revenue officer all the time you were on the "Carolena?" A.—I saw him when we were seized. Q.—You saw no officer from that time unti 1 you went ashore at Ounalaska? A.—No, I was out fishing. ii.—You did not go out fishing before you went ashore from the "Carolena"? A.—No. Q.—From the time of the seizure until you went ashore at Ounalaska you were on the "Carolena," and you say that you did not see an officer taking a list of the things and going about the ship? A.—There was an officer on board, but I did not see him make a list. Q.—You did not see him going around taking the inventory? A.—I do not remember that. Q—Will you swear that he did not? A.—No. 20 Q-—When you went up to Clayoquot your brother-in-law Bechtel was on board? A.—Yes. Q.—You rowed up with.him, did not you? A.—Yes. Q.—And this is the first time you had ever been to sea? A.—Yes. Q.—Were you ill? A.—No. Q.—You were not sick? A.—Not up to Clayoquot I was not. Q.—Was your brother-in-law sick? A.—I believe he was. Q.—He is your brother-in-law; do not you know whether 3° he was sick or not? A.—They said he was sick. Q.—Did you see him on the voyage? A.—Yes. Q.—He was about, wasn't he? A.—No. Q.—Where was he? A.—In the cabin, I think. Q.—How long was he in the cabin? A.—Until he got down there. Q.—And you did not see him all the way up although he is your brother-in-law? A.—Yes. Q.—Yo u did not have anything to do on the voyage up to Clayoquot, you were not a seaman were you? A.—Yes. Q.—I thought you were steerer for a sealing boat? A.— There were only four men and we had to takea shift all the time. Q.—When you were off the shift did not you go in to see your poor brother-in-law who was sick?- A.—Yes. Q.—When you got to Clayoquot, how long after you got there did you go ashore? A.—On the same day. Q.—And you swear, do vou, that the canoes were on the bank then? A.—Yes. Q.—The same four canoes that afterwards came on the "Carolena?" A.—I did not mark them, I do not know about that. Q.—Never mind marking—3'ou were doing seamen's work. Did vou help to load these canoes on the "Carolena?" A.— No. 1 Q.—Where were you? A.—I was on board. Q.—And had you anything to do with loading them? A.— No. Q.—Who did load them? A.—Dave Russell. 6° * Q.—Do you swear that these were the canoes you saw on the bank when first 3rou got there? A.—Yes. Q.—You swear that the canoes that came on board were the same? A.—Yes, by the time I had got on shore they had started to rib them. I Q.—And they were the same ones as were put on board? A.—Yes. Q.—And you swear you went ashore the first day you arrived and saw these canoes? A.—Yes. 40 5o to 20 30 40 So 60 (James Munger—Cross.) Q.—Did you notice what became of Cotsford? Did he go ashore with you ? A.—I think he was out trying guns to see how they would shoot. , Q.—Did Cotsford go ashore with you? A.—I do not know if he went in the same boat or not. Q.—Did he stay ashore that day? A.—I do not know that. Q.—Did he have anything to do with fixing the ribs? A.— No. Q.—Did Bechtel? A.—No. Q.—Bechtel had nothing to do with fixing the ribs? A.— No. Q-—And Bechtel never talked to you about this case? A. —No. Q.—Never? A.—No. Q.—Have you talked to them within the last eight days? A.—I have talked to him, but not about the case though. Q.—You have talked with him? A.—Yes. Q.—And never a word about the case or your business here? A.—I told him I was over on account of the case. Q.—And he did not give you the startling news that it was said that h'e was part owner of the "Carolena?" A.—No. Q.—And you had not seen him in about three, or four, years? A.—About three years. Q.—He never mentioned to you that it was claimed that he was one of the owners of the "Carolena" that you sailed off on? A.—No. Q.—Now did you see where Bechtel went when he went off at Clayoquot? You say he went away. A.—I did not see him going. Q.—What did he go in? A.—I do not know that. Q.—Did you not even give your brother-in-law good-bye? A.—No. Q.—Did you know he was going? A.—No. Q.—And he never mentioned to you where he was going? A.—No. Q.—And you went off on this trip of the "Carolena" without knowing what became of Bechtel? A.—The only thing was I heard them say where he went to; I did not know it and he did not tell me. Q.—And you had no talk with him about it. Did Cotsford work at steaming these ribs? A.—Ed. Shiels was the name. Q.—Do you know anything about a man named Indian Jimmy? A.—I do not know anything about him. Q.—You went down to San Francisco on the "St. Paul?" A.—Yes. Q.—Who paid you fare? A.—I do not know that. Q.—And you stayed in San Francisco for 10 days? A.— Yes. Q.—Who paid your hotel bill there? A.—Mr. Munsie. Q.—He was not there, I suppose? A.—No. Q.—Who paid your fare back? A.—Mr. Munsie. Q.—Did he also pay you your wages? A.—No. Q.—He never paid, vou your wages? A.—No. Q.—Sure? A.—Sure. Q.—And vou never got a cent for your work on the "Carolena?" A.'—No. Q.—Who did you say paid your fare up from San Francisco? A.—It was paid to the company. Q.—How was it paid? A.—I do not know. Q.—You do not know whether it was paid or not by Mr. Munsie? A.—The only thing was that I heard them say that it was paid by Munsie. Q.—You heard whom say it. Yon heard him say it? A. —Yes. £j<a 30 640 (James Munger—Cross—Re-direct.) Q.—You were not paid your wages nor your lay for the voyage' Q.—And that letter that has been spoken of, you did not get it until you reached here? A.—No. Q.—Have you got the envelope? A.—No. Q.—Where is it? A.—I tore it in pieces, and threw it down near the witness box some place. Q.—I want to have a look at that envelope? A.—It was all tore, and I tore it in pieces, and I threw it down here. Q.—That letter was from Munsie, was it? A.—Yes, from Munsie. Q.—Can you tell us who the man was that saw you eight days ago? A.—Yes. Q.—What is his name? A.—Wait a; moment. Q.—Come now, you know his name. What is it? A.—- It is a pretty hard name, and I am poor at names. His name was Chandler, or something like that. Re-direct examination by Mr.' Bodwell: Q.—Why do you say, Mr. Munger. that the pilot bread tasted better on the "St." Paul" than on the "Carolena?" A.— Because we were hungry. Q.—Did you not get food on the "St. Paul?" A.—No. Q.—How did you get along. What did you do? A.—The first we did not get anrthing, and then a man named Ed. Shiels got into the kitchen—he was a kind of butcher, and helped the cook in there and passed out something to eat. Mr. Dickinson:—Is this proper re-direct examination? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is one of the difficulties of a witness dropping something, in answer that is not asked about. 40 50 60 Re-examination by Mr. Bodwell (continued:) Q.—How long did it take you to go up from Victoria to Clayoquot? A.—I do not know. Q.—You do not remember? A.—No, about two or three days probably. Q.—Do you know what condition of health Mr. Bechtel was in, generally, about the time he took this journey? A.—Not just before that, I do not know. Q.—You said you were not sick until you reached Clyo- quot. You mean you were not seasick? A.—I was not seasick. Q.—It is a very short journey? A.—Yes. Q.—Do I understand you to say that you never heard Mr. Bechtel say an3rthing about the "Carolena" or the hunters in her? A.—No. Mr. Bodwell:—The next question that I propose to ask the witness is in consequence of something that dropped from him in his examination. I shall submit this evidence, and give the authority for it if there is a dispute. (To witness.) Q.—Did you hear Mr. Bechtel. say anything on that journey as to the purpose of the journey? Mr. Dickinson:—To that we object. Mr. Bodwell:—I have the authority for that if there is any dispute about it. "When any evidence is given as to a person being on a journey, or doing any act, anything which at the time which is declaratory of the purpose of the journey, or the object of it, is not hearsay; it is admitted as part of the (James Munger—Re-direct. Michael Serault—Direct.) res gestae and is expressed in the character of the act. That is laid down in Roscoe's Nisi Prius and Greenleaf on Evidence." Mr. Dickinson:—Under certain conditions and for certain purposes that is true, but it is not true when both witnesses have been called on the same side, and when the party whose IO motives and purposes are best known to himself, is within call. Mr. Bodwell:—That, your Honours, I submit, is not a test, because so long as evidence is admissible on any gFoun'd the e*act form or order in which that evidence will be adduced must be left to the person who is conducting the case. His only duty to the Court is to produce admissible evidence, and the duty of the court is to receive it. If he produces it in bad order, that, of course, is a matter for the court to decide about. The test is "Is it evidence or not?" and not whether 20 it is the best evidence he can get. The Commissioner on behalf of the United States:—Limit your question to what he said on board the vessel as qualifying his purpose. Re-direct examination continued by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Did you hear Mr. Bechtel say an;ything while on the voyage? Wait until I get to the end of my question. Did you hear him say anything during the course of the journey 3° which indicated the character of it? This closed the examination of the witness. Michael M. Serault was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. The testimony of this witness is offered in rebuttal in the "Carolena" case. Direct examination bj' Mr. Bodwell: Q.—You at present live at Alberni? A.—Yes, Sir. Q.—When did you come to Victoria? A.—In 1868. Q.—I mean lately? A.—Last Monday afternoon. Q.—What was the occasion of your coming here? A.—I 5° got a telegram to come to Victoria. Q.—From whom? A.—From Mr. -Munsie. Q.—Have you got that telegram? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You have it with you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—This is the telegram you received: ''From Victoria to Michael Serault, hotel proprietor, Alberni. Victoria, 13th Dec, 1896. You are wanted here by Wednesday's train re Commission. Time and expenses allowed. Answer. William Munsie." A.—That is the telegram. Q.—In 1886 you were store-keeper for Warren at Clayoquot? A.—Yes. Q.—Living there? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you see the "Carolena" there that year? A.—She came there in 1886, but what time of the year I do not know. Q.—Was she there before .May? A.—Yes. Q.—And then came back in May? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you know an Indian called Indian Jimmy? A.— Yes. 41 Go 642 (Michael Serault—Direct.) Q.—Can you tell us anything about his movements that year, 1886? A.—Well, he used to go out steering for the Indians. Q.—Anything with reference to the "Carolena"? A-—No, not as I know of. Q.—Do you know of his making a trip on the "Carolena" that year? A.—He came to Victoria with four or five other 10 Indians. Q.—How did he come? A.—He came on the "Carolena." Q.—On which trip of the "Carolena" did he come to Vic- coria? A.—I think it was when they quit sealing on theu • coast as near as I recollect. Q.—Then he came back to Clayoquot? A.—He did not come back on the "Carolena." He got back on another vessel Q.—Do you know anythng about the canoes that were 20 taken on board of the "Carolena" that year? A.—There were either four or six that went on board the "Carolena." I cannot tell exactly whether it was four or six. Q.—Tell us what you know about these canoes? A.— There were four canoes left at Clayoquot and got fixed; they got timbers and side pieces put in. I had to furnish some of the timber, and used to give them a hand now and again to fix the canoes. Q.—Do 3rou know anything about who purchased these canoes, or who bargained for them? A.—No, well— 3C The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That answers the question. Q.—Did you know Captain Ogilvie? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know whether he had anything to do with these canoes in any way? A.—He must have had. Q.—Why do you say that? A.—There was no other master on board the ship but him. 40 q_—Did you have any talk with him? A.—Yes. Q.—About what? A.—Where he could get canoes. Q.—Did you loll him? A.—I told him where I thought he could get two canoe's. Q.—Do you know whether he did anything in consequence of what you told him? A.—I think he got the two. Q.—Did he get the canoes? A.—Yes. Q.—After your conversation with him did he get any canoes? A.—He got four or six, but I do not remember the 50 number. Q_Was that on the first trip of the "Carolena?" A.—I do not remember. Q.—You remember that Indian Jimmie left Clayoquot with him on that trip and came to Victoria? A.—Yes. Q.—What kind of canoes were those?, A.—They were a large canoe; that is, larger than the regular sealing canoe on account of them using white men for hunting. p The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not see what part of the case of the other side this tends to rebut. Mr. Peters:—Surety we need not be so particular here now. The Commissioner on the part of the tinted States:—For 1113' part I think it is time to get particular. I intend to gee lhat time is not waded by irrelevant testimom'. HI The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—If the object is to prove that these were canoes that would be worth what you paid for them, don't you think that a question to that effect would be a fair limit in rebuttal? Mr. Peters:—But they bring up a witness named Cotsford, who says that so far as he knows the ver3- largest one of the canoes was bought and bargained for at $11. We want now to show the absurdity of that. W-e gave evidence that we bought the canoes at a certain figure irrespective of what they were worth, and then they bring Cotsford to say that this statement must be wrong and that the canoes only cost $11. He does not swear that there was a bargain made to buy that canoe for $11, but the assuniption is that it was bought for that price. Under the circumstances, evidence of this kind is perfectly proper. I believe that even in an ordinary case at nisi prius it would be allowed in rebuttal. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—If you put in this evidence, Mr. Peters, what rights have they on (he other side? Mr. Peters:—I shall not object to any evidence they put in in the matter. I submit that in a matter of this kind we should not be bound down too closely. We are not going to bring out an3r new evidence. I might refer your Honours to Cotsford's evidence, to be found at page 375, and there it will be found that he makes a datement thai, if correct, would tend to show that Mr. Munsie's statement cannot be credited. he Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—So far as I am concerned, I believe you can rebut that particular statement of Cotsfor-l by producing any evidence which would tend to show that he was midaken. The evidence was allowed originally to contradict a statement with regard to Bechtel's presence and without any reference, to Cotsford. It seems to me in some way you ought to be allowed to rebut as best you can, if you can, the inference that might fairly be drawn from Cotsford's testimony. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Why do not you ask the question, Mr. Peters, whether canoes of that class ever sold for $11? Mr. Peters:—We will do so. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell continued: Q.—Could you buy one of these canoes for $11? A.—No. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Did such kind of canoes ever sell for any price like $11? A.—No, sir. Q.—Do you know what price they did sell for? A.—I do not know what he paid for them. Q.—Could you mention any instance' in which canoes of that kind were bought at that price? A.—No. 10 644 tMichaei Serault—Direct—Cross.) Q_What did you pav for canoes when you bought them? A.-I bought them all the way from $10 to $85. Q._Did you ever see any canoes like that sold for $10 or $11? a.—No. . Warn* r»_Or for anything like that price.' A—JNO. Q—What would be about the general selling price for canoes of that kind? A.—It just depends upon the time ot O—What are the conditions that regulate the price? A. -At that time of the year the Indians won't sell their canoes^ O—Why' -V—Because they are using them themselves then for sealing, but after the season you could get a canoe for any price if thev were short of money. Q-\± that time of the year in the season the Indians are sealing themselves and won't sell their canoes? A—No, because thev want to use them. , Q-Dld jou see Mr. Bechtel on the occasion ot the second visit o1: the'"Carolena" to Clayoquot? A.-I saw tarn when %^hereb%d™£SeBe°eSer^SSen he was at Cla,.- q^D,d S Ml8t^wlfhemwas there and where he wa, going? A.—Yes. Q_What did he tell you? Mr. Dickinson:—I object to this. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—On the 30 whole we think Mr. Bodwell may ask this question. 20 Direct examination by Mr. Bodwe continued. O—What did Mr. Bechtel say to you about the subject? A.-When he came ashore he asked me which way he would get to Alberni, and I told him there was no chance except there was a canoe pass or unless he hired a canoe. Mr. Dickinson :-I desire to record my protest on the notes against admitting a statement of what Mr. Bechtel said- 40 Ser the circumdances on this ^cord-proving what Mr. Bechtel's intentions were by what he said to this witness. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—If I go into a bar room, and it is asserted that I did so P^udicialty, cannot I produce testimony that I was m there for a certain purpose? I think that would be evidence. Suppose I went into the bar for the purpose of hiring a horse to go on another journey. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell continued. Q—Did Mr. Bechtel give you any orders or directions or take any part to your knowledge in the matter of the purchase of these canoes, or as to the work that should be done on them? A.—No, sir. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q_What was your business up there then? A.—I was trading for Captain Warren. Q.—Did you have anything to do with the canoes.' A.— Q._Were you there when they were bought? A.—No, sir. Q._You did not hear the transaction, did you? A.—No, sir. q _You did not see the man that sold them at the time when he was beginning to sell them? A.—Yes. q.—Difl you see the knees put in the canoes? A.—Yes, Sir, I helped, to do some of the work. 50 60 Q.—Was Bechtel there at the time the work was done? A.—Yes. Q.—What was he doing? A.—He was not doing anything. Q.—Was he working on the bank? A.—No, he came back now and again. Q.—Did he give any directions about the work? A.—No, sir,-he did not. Q-—Were the canoes bought when Bechtel was there? A.—That I cannot say. Q.—But you have testified here that Bechtel did not give any directions about the purchase of canoes, and did not have anything to do with the purchase of canoes? A.—Well, I don't know. Q.—You were not" around were you all the time? A.—No but the canoes were there before Bechtel came there. Q.—Who brought them there? A.—They came ashore. 20 Q-—Who brought them there? A.—An Indian. Q.—What was his name? A.—His name was Jimmy. Q.—Where is "Indian Jimmy?" A.—I don't know. Q.—Is he up there now? A.—I don't know. Q.—You do not know? A.—I don't know. Q.—Where does he live, how far from your place? A.— 75 miles. Q.—Have you seen him since? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you say he came down to Victoria on the "Carolena?" A.—Yes, sir. 30 Q-—What trip? A.—I cannot say what trip it was, the trip, I think, before she went to Behring Sea. Q.—Did you see Jimmy go aboard? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Some other Indians also? A.—Either three or four. Q.—Were there some Indians on that ship on the first sealing trip, when she was first up there? A.—Yes, sir, they sealed off the coast. Q.—Indian Jimmy went with that lot of Indians sealing up ihe coast, did he not? A.-—I am not positive he was among them. 40 Q.—Were there some other Indians?- A.—Yes, sir. Q.—They went up there first and before the canoes were put on board, and went sealing in the spring, in February, on the coast? A.—Yes. Q.—How many Indians did they take on that trip? A.— I don't know. Q.—Did you see any Indians? A.—Oh, certainly. Q.—They went oh board the "Carolena?" A.—Certainly. Q.—They went off on the trip? A.—Yes. Q.—And they went up the coast sealing? A.—Yes. Q.—And they came back? A.—Yes. Q.—And they stopped where? A.—Stopped at their place, their home. Q.—How many Indians went on that trip, the first trip, when they went sealing on the coast? A.—That I don't enow. I think it was six or eight canoes the "Carolena" carried. Q.—They carried six or eight canoes on their first trip? A. —I don't remember how many she took. g0 Q.—But thev took canoes on their first trip in the spring? A.—Yes. Q.—And did they take Indians to man them? A.—Certainly. Q.—And how were the Indians armed? A.—They had guns and spears. Q.—How many Indians to a canoe? A.—Two. Q.—And they stopped on the way back and left the Indians 646 IO 20 30 40 50 60 (Michael Serault—Cross.) off with the exception of Indian Jimmy? A.—They run in and out all the time. Q.—Did they leave the Indians off except Indian Jimmy? A.—Why no, there were three others, I think. Q.—Did they take them all to Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How do you know that Indian Jimmy came to Victoria? A.—Because he came to my place. Q.—Did the other Indians come to Victoria? A.—Well, when they stopped staling off the coast they came ashore. Q.—Was Indian Jimmy on that trip? A.—I could not tell you that Q. —How do you know he went to Victoria? A.—He got on board the "Carolena" for Victoria. Q.—They discharged the other Indians, did they? A.— You are asking too much; that was a long time ago. Q.—Do you know the names of these Indians? A.—Jimmy, of course we knew him because his name was "Windy Jimmy." ■ Q.—How long was she gone on that trip up the coast? A.— That is a hard thing to answer, because she is in and out all the time according to the weather. Q.—What did they do with the canoes when they started for Victoria? A.—They landed them. Q.—Were these the same canoes they took? A.—No, I could not say that. Q.—Were these the same canoes they took on their sealing trip .that they afterwards put aboard and took to Victoria? A.—It would be hard for a man to swear to that. Q,—You do not know, do you? A.—No, I don't know. Q.—What became of the canoes they brought back from their coast trip? A.—They landed them there. Q.—What became of them afterwards? A.—I don't know. Q.—Now, you say that the Indians are short of money and they will sell their canoes cheap when they get back from sealing? A.—I say when they are short of money. Q_When they get back from sealing? A.—Yes. Q._Now, these Indians that went off on the "Carolena" got back from the Coad sealing, did they not? A.—Certainly. Q.—Were any of the canoes on that ship bought? A.—I don't know. q.—what were those canoes worth? A.—It all depends on what you can get. q.—What were those canoes' worth? A.—I am not dealing in canoes, therefore I don't know. Q_Were they worth $20? A.—Which canoes are you speaking of? Q.—The canoes that went sealing? A.—On the coast? Q.—On the "Carolena" on the coast, with the Indian crew. A.—You can buy those canoes for different prices. Q._Were they worth $10? A.—More than that. Q.—$15? A.—More than that. Q.—$20? A.—Yes, you could not buy them less than $25 or $30. Q.—Were the canoes that the "Carolena" got there in May better than those? A.—They were larger. Q.—Did yOu ever know of a canoe up there that cost $50? A.—Yes, I got one for $55 and I got one for $85. Q.—What kind of a canoe was that $85 canoe? A.—That was a large canoe, carried about four tons. Q.—What was it made of? A.—It was made of cedar. Q.—When did you buy that? A.—I bought that in 1885— the fall of 1885. I Q.—Now, do you know of whom they bought the canoes that were put on the "Carolena" in May? A.—They were bought from Jimmy. 64; io 20 40 so Go (Michael Serault—Cross—Be-direct) Q.—Bought in May, were they? A.—Yes, I would not swear what time that was. Q.—Were those $85 canoes? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were they $50 canoes? A.—I cannot tell you that. Q.—Were they worth $15? A.—They were worth—it all depended on what a man wanted them for. Q—Were "they worth $15? A.—More than that. Q.—Were they worth $25? A.—Yes, sir, they were worth more than that. Q.—You swear to that, do you?. A.—I do. Q.—You are staying at Mr. Munsie's house? A.—No, sir. Q.—You were staying there? A.—I was there for four days. The reason I was there because I took suddenly ill and Mr. Munsie was kind enough to give me a room in his house. Re-direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—You were under the doctor's care at Mr. Munsie's house? A.—Yes, and he would not allow me out of the house at all. Q.—What doctor? A.—Dr. Hall. Q.—What were the circumstances immediately preceding your illness and going to Mr. Munsie's house? A.—Well, Capt. Roberts was hunting for me and I went on board the boat first, and then I came up town— Mr. Bodwell:—Commence with your arrival in Victoria. Witness:—I came to Victoria and I had some lunch, and afterwards I went to see when the boat sailed for Alberni— Mr. Dickinson:—Are we going to have all this? Mr. Bodwell:—The difficulty is that a part of this thing is already on the record and colour has been given to those circumstances which are not exactly correct. Either that should go out of the record or a full explanaiioi should appear. Mr. Peters:—I made the suggestion that all that matter should go out of this record, I do not think it ought to be in the record at all. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is it printed in the forms? Mr. Peters:—Yes, and it has a tendency to show that this witness is not a credible witness. Mr. Dickinson:—We withdraw the objection if our friends want it for this reason, provided they will spare us the conversation he had with people. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—As they cannot be taken out of the printed notes, they being paged, I suppose what you have to say about it should appear. Mr. Bodwell:—Whom did you see then after you had your lunch? A.—I met a friend in the house there and was talking with him and Capt. McLean. Q.—Alexander McLean? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—That man sitting there (indicating)? A.—Yes, sir, I was speaking with this man and he came out and after that he asked me to go up to his room, and I went up to his room. Q.—And he had that conversation with vou there? A.— Yes. Q.—Did anybody else come in? A.—I believe there was, but I did not mind who it was. 648 (Michael Serault—Re-direct you know his name if you Re-cross.) leard it? A.—I A.—Yes. —I could not tell you, 10 20 Q.—Would . don't know. Q.—Was he introduced to you? Q.—Was his name Rowland? A don't remember the name. Q.—They talked to you about the "Carolena" case and what you knew about the canoes, did they not? A.—They asked me what I came here for and I told them I did not know, 1 was sent for, and ttey asked me what I could buy canoes for. Q.—How long did the conversation last? A.—Not very long. Q.—How did it break up? A.—I had to go down and find out about the steamer to the office. Q.—Did you see them again? A.—I see them, but I don't mind exactly what time it was. Q.—Did you have anything to drink? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you have anything before you went up to the room? A.—Yes, sir, I had one or two. Q.—Who proposed the drinks? A.—I think I asked for the drinks *and Capt. McLean paid for it. Q.—Did you have more than one drink? A.—I think I had two before we left the house. Q.—Did you meet Capt. McLean after that night? A.— Yes, I met him once. Q.—Have any more drinks with him? A.—That I don't mind; I don't think it though. Then I went down aboard the boat, at least I met Capt. Roberts when I met Capt. McLean the second time. He said: "I wish you to come down and sign those cheques which you forgot to endorse." So I went on the boat and just as I was going away I met Capt. Irving and we walked up and. met Mr. Munde, and all at once I said: "I am going home, I feel ill." I kind of fainted like. So the Captain said: "Take a carriage and take him home." I understood that he was to take me down to the hotel. He said: "I am going to take you down to my place; I have a bedroom and a good fire," and he took me home. q.—When the Indians go out sealing in the spring on board a schooner their custom is to have their own canoes, is it not? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—And these Indians on the "Carolena" in that spring took their canoes? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And when their sealing was over their canoes were landed? A.—Certainly. Q.—But these canoes were landed for the purpose of taking white hunters out? A.—Yes, sir. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: 5° Q.—You knew Capt. McLean up the coast, did you not? He had a trading post there? A.—I never kpew he had a trading post. Q.—You frequently saw him there and were personally acquainted with him? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You both knew each other and stayed at the same hotel? A.—I just had my lunch there. Q.—You were at the Queen's Hotel, and did you not have a room? A.—No. Q.—So you went into Capt. McLean's room did you? A.— No. Q.—What room was it? A.—I went into his Q.—You went into Capt. McLean's room on his invitation? A.—Yes, certainly. Q.—Did you tell Capt. McLean on that occasion that those canoes were worth about $15 that were put on board the "Carolena?" A.—That is a hard question. Q.—Did you tell Capt. McLean in his room at the hotel that 40 60 the canoes that Munsie bought there for the "Carolena" were worth about $15 apiece? A.—If I can date, I must certainly say no, because I told him in a different way. Q.—What did you tell him about the $15 at this time when 3'ou were with Captain McLean in his room? You had just met him? A.—Yes. Q.—You had not had any drinks had you? A.—Well, I won't say that. Q.—You had not had any with Capt. McLean, had you? A. —Yes, that was the time we had two drinks before we went up. Q.—You met him down stairs in the hotel? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—And you met him in the office of the hotel, did you? A.—No, in the bar room. Q.—You were in the bar room yourself were you to get a drink? A.—I was talking with an old friend I happened to see there. Q.—Now, in the room upstairs, did you say to Capt. McLean that the canoes put on board the "Carolena" in May were worth about $15 apiece? A.—We spoke about canoes you see Q.—Did you tell McLean that? A.—I will ha>e to say no because the way the conversation Q.—Just tell us what you did say? A.—He asked me what canoes could be bought for and I told him canoes could be bought at most any price, that is to say, if they wanted to sell. I have bought canoes, I said, from $10 to $15. Q.—Were you speaking then of the canoes that went on the "Carolena?" A.—It did not cover that way at all. Q.—Is there anything else you want to say about that? A. We were talking about the prices of canoes and things like that. I had bought very many canoes one way and another. Q.—Tell us what you said and not what you have done. A. —I did not mind saying that to him, that way. Q.—What did you say about the canoes? A.—Well, I did not say that those canoes—I could not certainly have told them they were $15, I don't know the price of them. I got two canoes myself and I paid $15 for them. Q.—The same kind? A.—Smaller. Q.—How much smaller? A.—Considerably. Q.—How much smaller? A.—Quite a bit smaller. Q.—How much? A.—I could not tell, it was not yesterday they were bought. Q.—Did you tell him about buying a canoe for Capt. Warren for $8? A.—I don't think it, not for $8. Q.—Did you tell him that you did buy a canoe of this same size for Capt. Warren at the same time these canoes were bought for the "Carolena?" A.—I could not have told him that, I don't think. Q.—You do not think so, will you swear it, whether you did tell him you had bought a canoe of the same kind and the same size as these that went on the "Carolena" for $8? A.— I don't think I told, him that. Q.—Did you buy a canoe for Capt. Warren about the same time that these canoes were bought for the "Carolena?" A. —No. long before that. Q— What did-you pay for it? A.—I bought myself big enough to hold two. Q.—Did you buy a canoe for Capt. Warren? it to Capt. Warren, I bought it for myself. Q.—And big enough for two? A.—Just for duck hunting. Q.—And that was the $8 canoe -was it ? A.—No, I did not pay $8 for it. Q.—Was the canoe as large as the canoes that were bought for the "Carolena ?" A.—No. a, canoe I sold mmxat 650 (Michael Serault—Re-direct. T. H. Brown—Direct.) Q.—Did you say it was to Captain McLean? A.—I don't think it. Q.—Where were you born, witness? A.—I was born in Oregon. Q.—Are you half blood? A.—I am Canadian, my people are from Montreal. 10 Re-direct examination resumed by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—I want to ask you one question: Did you know Capt. McLean when he came up and spoke to you in the hotel ? A. —Not for a minute, not till he told me who he was; he hardly knew me; it had been years since we had met. Q.—He was not a particular friend of yours at that time? A.—We were pretty good friends at one time. Re-cross-examination resumed by Mr. Dickinson: 20 Q-—You knew each other pretty well up on the coast? A. —I got acquainted with him upon the coast. Q.—Knew him pretty well up there? A.—Just friends like, only that. Q.—I would like to ask you about whether you are half Indian? A.—No dr my people were born in Montreal. Q.—Were they Indians? A.—How do I know? They might have stole a march on me. 30 40 So 60 Thomas H. Brown, was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, as one of the six witnesses to be examined by the Commissioners' direction, and was duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell; Q.—You'llve in Victoria West, Mr. Brown? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were you out sealing in 1889? A.—I was. Q.—In what schooner? A.—The "Mary Ellen." Q.—Where did you go? A.—To Behring Sea. Q.—What capacity did you fill on the boat? A.—Hunter. Q.—Do you know what time you got into the Sea? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—When? A.:—We entered on the 3rd of July. Q.—How long did you stay? A.—We came out on the 28th of August at 7 p.m. Q.—Did you keep an account of the seals you caught that year? A.—I did so. Q.—How many did you get in the Sea? A.—260 odd, I think, I would not be positive. Q.—Can you tell by looking at your book? A.—I can- Q.—Will you look and see the exact number that you got 9 and are you now looking at the book kept by you at the time? A.—Yes, sir. q.—Entries made from day to day? A.—From day to day. Q.—By yourself? A.—By myself. Q.—Looking at that book, will you state the exact number of seals that you took in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. The Commisdoner on the part of Her Majesty:—What year is this? Mr. Bodwell:—The year 1889. Witness:—(Examining book)—270 odd. Q.—Captain Alexander McLean was captain of the "Mary Ellen" that year, was he not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You say you entered the sea the 3rd day of July; do you know the first day you lowered? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On the 10th of July, was it not? A.—No, sir. Q.—What day? A.—The 5th. Q.—What was the last day you lowered? A.—The 25th August. Q.—You said you came out on the 28th August, but you lowered last on the 25th? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You came out because the season was over so far as you know? A.—Yes, sir, we had heard of seizing going on previous to that. Q.—Some time previous to that, was it not? A.—Yes, sir I think the first intimation we heard of the seizures— Q.—We will not go into these details. You do not mean to say that you came out of Behring Sea because you heard of the seizures, did you? A.—No, I would not say it was that. Q.—Now, witness, commence with the 1st of August and tell us how many days yon lowered that month? A.—In the month of August? Q.—Not when you took one seal, but when you lowered your boats for seals? A.—The 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 20th, 21st and 25th. Q.—On the 5th August you got but 12 seals; that is so, is it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And on the 10th you got 9? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And on the 12th 12? A.—Yes, sir, and we took 1,253 skins in the season. Q.—I show you a book which has been indentified' here, and ask you if 1,253 skins in Capt. McLean's book, marked for identification No. 2, does not exactly agree with Capt. McLean's account of it? Mr. Bodwell:—I do not know as that is a question that can be asked. This witness is asked to look at a book which has beeen identified, which he does not know anything about, and to say whether or not his account Is the same as the account in that book. The book speaks for itself, and is already in go for the purpose of reference. It will add to the information of the court to have him show that the figures he has- given are the same as the calculation there, because that is already there and in the possession of the court, m Mr. Dickinson:—Does it make any difference whether he makes the comparison or not? Cross-examination by Mr. Warren continued: 6S2 IO 20 30 (T. H. Brown—Cross.) Q.—Is that Captain McLean's writing (showing witness book)? A.—I could not say whether it is or not. Q.—How many men in each boat? A.—Three. There were three men in the hunting boat, two men and a hunter. Q.—And they were white hunters? A.—White hunters. Q.—And used guns? A.—Yes. Q.—When you give the percentages of seals that were lost shooting you do not include those that were shot at a great distance, wounded and then got away? A.—No, sir. Q.—You yourself do not take many chances; you shoot seals at short distance only? A.—Well, I fire a good many random shots. Q.—Out of 100 seals that you see, how many of them do you shoot at on an average? A.—What is that question? Q.—How many seals do you shoot at out of 100 you see? A.—How many seals would I shoot at out of 100 that I see? Q.—What I am getting at is, do you shoot at every seal you see? A.—Yes, if he is in range. Q.—You see a great man3' of them that are not in range? A.—Oh, yes, a great many of them that are not in range. Q.—Look at this affidavit, Mr. Brown, and tell me whether that is a copy of an affidavit that you made (showing witness Vol. 8 of the American Re-print, page 651? A.—(Examining) Yes. Q.—I read from paragraph four of that affidavit, and ask if you made that statement: "I and other hunters make sure that we are close enough to a seal to make us reasonably certain of getting it before we shoot at all." Paragraph 5. "I use both a shot gun and a rifle, but seldom a rifle, and then only at travelling seals on a calm day, and a rifle is never used except when a seal is too far away to shoot with a shot gun. I didn't kill more than twelve with a rifle this year." Paragraph 6. "I shoot at a sleeping seal when about 15 yards away, and most of the seals we get are sleepers. There is no chance of a seal sinking before it is got, if only one is shot. But sometimes when two are together, and both are shot, one may sink while we are after the other. Most of the seals I lost were lost in this way." Paragraph 7. "I have every year seen seals in schools both south of Cape Flattery and north along the coast to the Fairweather Grounds, but seals are very hard to get then; they seem to be on the look out, and if one shot is fired all make away." Paragraph 8. "I am sure that I don't shoot at one out of fifty seals that I see—probably not one out of a hundred." Q.—Are those your statements? A.—Yes, I guess so. Q.—And they are true? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you make this additional statement found in paragraph 10 of that affidavit: "The older seals are harder to get than the young ones, and the females are much harder to get than the males? The older seals are harder to get 60 than the young ones." Did you make that statement? A.— I don't recollect anything about that statement at all. Q.—Is that statement true, taking just this part of it: "The older seals are harder to get than the younger ones," leaving out about the females? A.—No, I don't know as there is any difference. Q.—Do you not know that is true? A.—No. Q.—In the total catch of these vessels, and particularly of 40 SO your own, and if yon know that it is generally true, are seals of all sizes included in the total catch? A. -Yes. ■ Q.—Gray pups, along with extra large male seals? A.— Yes, in my total catch they are all included. Q.—So far as yon know, that is the general rule among the sealing captains? A.—Yes, as far as I know. Q.—There are some gray pups shot I suppose? A.—Yes. io Q.—And sometimes a considerable number of them ? A.— Yes, I have seen quite a few gray pups shot. Q.—They get sometimes 100 or 150 of them in a voyage in Behring Sea, do they not? A.—Well, no, I couldn't say that for Behring Sea. Q.—Including the upper coast catch and Behring Sea they might get that many if they ("aught 100 on the whole trip? A.—Well, yes, it would be about 100, I should say. Q.—100 pups out of every 1,000 in the catch from Victoria up to Behring Sea and back, including, of course, the Upper 20 Coast catch; is that right? A.—Yes. Q.—Then about 10 per cent, of the total catch of the seals are gray pups, and speaking specificially of this .upper coast catch and Behring Sea? A.—Yes, as a rule. Q.—Are brown pups included in the same way as gray nips in the catch? A.—Well, there is no didinction made in making the entries. Q.—Are they included in the total amount? A.—They would be included in the total, yes. Q.—As I understand it there are not any black pups J,J taken in any quantity? A.—No. Q.—Then in the total catch in Behring Sea, when a captain, or any other sealing man returns the total catch, there woulf be included all seals, wigs, extra large, large, middling, medium, small, gray pups, brown pups and black pnps; is that so? A.—They make a memorandum of it all. ["he Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I think posdbly, with reference to what he said before, you could not include black pups in your question, because it is put as a 4° statement of what he said. Q.—Did you take any hair seals in 1889, can you tell by your books? \.—We don't enter them with the fur seal at all; there might have been two or three shot. Q.—You took them in and put them in your vessel, however? A.—Yes, we might take them aboard the vessel.. Q.—What boat were you on in 1890, Mr. Brown? A.—The "Maggie Mai-." Q.—How many boats did the "Maggie Mac" have? A.-- 50 She had five regular hunting boats, and a stern boat. Q.—What was the tonnage of the "Maggie Mac?" A.— 70 tons. Q.—Have you the entries for the "Maggie Mac" in that >k? A.—I have. (Witness produces the memorandum with reference to the catch of the "Maggie Mac" in Behring Sea for the months of July and Augud, 1890.) Q.—Referring to that book which you have produced, Mr. Brown, will yon tell the Commissioners how many seals the 60 "Maggie Mac" took in Behring Sea in the month of July, 1890? A.—167. Q.—And she had five boats and a stern boat? A.—Yes. Q.—And white hunters? A.—White hunters. Q.—Armed with guns? A.—Armed with guns. Q.—Three men in a boat A. With the exception of the stern boat. Q.—What day did you first lower in July in 1890? A.— The loth. tcuj'-j-I'iii I'.ti^r-j 654 (T. H. Brown—Cross—Re-direct.) Q.—What was the catch of the "Maggie Mac" for August of that year in Behring Sea? A.—678. That makes her total catch 845. Q.—What was the first year you were in the Sea, Mr. Brown? A.—1888. Q.—What boat were you on? A.—The "Maggie Mac." Q.—You have been in the Sea every year since that year 10 that you could go in? A.—Yes, I have been there since. Q.—You were there in 1889 and 1890, of course? A.—I was. Q.—Do the sealing Captains purchase seals on the boats or anywhere else from the Indians during these voyages? A.— No, not to my knowledge. Q.—Where are the skins bought from the Indians purchased, here in Victoria, or where? A.—In Victoria, I think. Q.—Do not the vessels which stop in August buy skins off the Indians? A.—No, sir, not that I know of. 20 Q*—^° they buy hair seals here in Victoria? A.—I don't know, I am sure. Q.—They would not do that, would they? A.—Here in Victoria ? Q._Yes. A.—I really Couldn't tell you. Q.—You do not know of any such practice as that, do you? A.—No. Q.—And if a large number of hair seals are caught or reported each year, they must come from off the vessels; is that what you think about it? A.— 3° Mr. Peters:—That is a mere question of argument. A.—Well, I know in my experience in sealing, we never brought any hair seals here for sale. Re-direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—What kind of weather did you have in 1890? A.—The weather was not very good in 1890. Q.—In this affidavit that you have been asked about, I see 40 that in paragraph three you state that you have kept an account book of 1 he number of skins you lost by sinking. Is this your statement. "I have kept count each year of the number of seals I have killed. In 1889 I got 370, and lost less than seven or eight. I am sure there were less than that number lost by sinking, but will say eight, so that I can safely swear to it. In 1890 I got 388 skins, and lost by sinking 12 seals. Last year I got 331 skins, and lost 10 by sinking. This year I got 348 skins, and lost by sinking seven seals. I kept count of the number that sank, and know exactly. I 5° consider that no average hunter ought to lose more than I have lost." Q.—Do you keep account? A.—I do. Q.—Is that correct with your account? A.—That is correct. Q.—Have you got the account now? A.—No. Q—But that was made at the time? A.—Yea. Q.—Do you gd many gray pups in Behring Sea? A.—Not . many. Q.—Of what class is the Behring Sea catch composeel of? A.—Well, as a rule they are a large seal. Q.—Do you remember yourself of ever getting a gray pup in Behring Sea? A.—No, I can't remember. Q.—The gray pups are caught on the coast, are they? A. —As a rule, yes. ' The Commissioners then took recess. Q.—Have you found the place in your log showing the date em which 3'ou first heard of any seizures? A.—Yes, sir. Q—What was it? A.—(Examining) 23rd of August. Q.—Have you any note of the number of seals you caught that day? A.—(Examining) We didn't hunt that day. Q.—Did you hunt the day before? A.—The 21st. Q.—How many did you get on the 21st? A.—2-1. Q.--is 1hat your own boat? A.—No, the total cateh. got dx. Q.—How long did you stay in the Sea after the 23rd? —We came out on the 28th. Q.— Did you do any more sealing? A.—We only sealed one day after that, the 25(h. Q.—Where did you do that sealing on the 25th? A.—That was close to the Pass—Four Mountain Pass. Q.—The seizure of what schooners did you hear? A.—On that day we spoke— Q.—Never mind what you did. What schooners did you hear had been seized? A.—The "Minnie," "Black Diamond" and "Pathfinder." Re-cross examination by Mr , Q.—Referring to this memorandum, from which 3'ou refreshed your recollections as to the date when you spoke the schooners that informed you that other schooners had been seized, I will ask you if that is the log of the "Mary Ellen"? A.—No, that ain't the log, that is my own personal journal that I kept of the trip, the state of the weather, the number of seals, and the vessels we had spoken on that day. Q.—I show you the log of the "Mary Ellen." Is that the log of the "Mary Ellen" that I have in my hands? A.—(Examining) I couldn't say; I didn't see the log. I would say 40 that this is Captain McLean's writing. Q.—It says in this memorandum under date of the 23rd of August, among other things, that the "Black Diamond" had spoken you, and reported that she had spoken the "Theresa," who reported that she had not been doing much sealing? .V. —She had not been doing much. Q.—Now, this morning you told me that you did not claim you left the Sea in 1889, because you were warned out. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—He has not stated that on re-cross-examination. Mr. Warren:—These facts put in this connection tend to leave that impression. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—He does not say that now;.he merely gave what was in the memorandum book. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: I omitted to ask. this morning about the latter days 60 of the season of 1890, and ask the court for the right to interfere. This one witness has told about a catch the last day, the 25th of August, 1890. Do you then refer to the memorandum which you have of the "Maggie Mac" of the year 1890, and tell the Commissioners how many seals yon took the 22nd day of August, 1890'.' A.—This is the latter part of August; we were down close to the Pass. The 22nd we took 49; (lie 23rd, 107; 241 li. 11 ; 25th. .'!; 27th, 4; 28th, 37; 29th, 8; 30th; 9. IO 656 (T. H. Brown—Re-cross—Re-direct.) Q.—The vessel took that? A.—That is the total catch. Q.—There seems to be some mistake in the catch you have given for'1890, and the information we have relative to that. Will you just foot up those figures and see if there is not a mistake in the footing? A.—(Computing) Not a mistake. Q.—How did you get the information upon which you put these figures in your book for any catch except your own? A.—From the hunter every day. Q.—And these entries are made every day? A.—Those entries are made every day. Q.—And this entry of the 23rd of August, 1889, how did you get that fact that you put down here? A.—I was on board of the "Lillie L."" at the time. Q.—You were asked whether 3'ou had an entry here of the skins on the "Minnie." Have you an entry of the skins on the 'Lillie L." a? That ti A.—Yes. 20 30 Q.—What was it? A.—300. Mr. Bodwell:—I desire to have these books marked for identification. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I think it would be competent for us to look at them, perhaps, to elucidate something in the testimony. Ordinarily papers are marked for identification so that they can be afterwards looked at. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— We ought to know whether a book is in the case or not. Mr. Bodwell:—I would ask to have them marked as exhibits if there is to be any doubt about them, as otherwise it might be very awkward for us. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you offer the books? 40 Mr. Bodwell:—Yes, your Honour. Log book, schooner "Maggie Mae-," Victoria, received and marked Exhibit "28 G.B." Record book of witness Brown received and marked Exhibit "29 G.B." Cross-examination continued by Mr. Warren: Q.—If the "Mary Ellen" was at latitude 54, 55, and longitude 166 .40 on the 20th of August, 1889, will you tell the Commissioners how far that would be from Unimak Pass. You went ont of that pass did you not? A.—No, we came out of Four Mountain Pass. Q.—How far is that from Unimak Pass? A.—(Examining chart.) About 3Q miles; that is a rough calculation, you know. Re-direct examination continued by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Was that good sealing ground there close to the pass? A.—No, sir. Q.—That is where you were? A.—Oh, I don't know about 6° that position; we did not come out of Unimak pass; we came out of Four Mountain Pass; I remember distinctly when we came out there. Q.—How do you remember that you came out of Four Mountain Pass? A.—On account of this reef; the wind was from the sonthwed from the time," and the weather was quite dirty, and the captain was anxious to get out by this reef before dark. 3Q (T. H. Brown—Re-direct. Charles Hackdt—Direct.) Q.—Can you lay that reef down on the chart? (Witness indicates.) Q.—It is the reef off Samalga Island, is it not? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—Do you remember how long you were after you got out of the pass before you got to Sand Point; do your books show? A.—My book would show; the first of September we arrived at Sand Point. Q.—What was the ordinary running time from Unimak Pass to Samalga. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What is there in the examination of Mr. Bodwell that justifies this? Mr. Bodwell:—Mr. Warren, for some purpose, brought out of this witness that the location of the ship at a certain dale was 30 miles north of Unimak Pass. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That was only a simple question of how far such a point by latitude and longitude is from the Pass. Mr. Bodwell:—Then I will ask the witness this question: Given the position about 30 miles north of Samalga Island, where would it be by latitude and longitude on the chart—on what meridian of longitude would it be? A.—169. Q.—And it would be between 53 and 54 north latitude? A. It would. Q.—And pretty nearly 54? A.—No, it would be nearer 53. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—You cannot tell by your books at what hour on September first you arrived at Sand Point? A.—No, sir. ii.—Whether it was midnight of September first or not? A.—No, I would ne>t be positive. 40 Alexander Reppen was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and being duly sworn, was examined by consent of counsel out of order, with reference to claims which will be taken up hereafter. 5o Go Charles Hackett was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain as one of the six witnesses allowed to be called under the ruling of the Commissioners, and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Beique: Mr. Beique:—This witness will be examined as to 1888 and 1890. Q.—You were on the "Annie C. Moore" in 1889? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—As master of the vessel? A,—Master of the vessel. Q.—Did you go into Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you seal on the coast before? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you keep a daily record of the catch? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you got it with you? A.—Yes, sir. 42 ■ass 658 (Charles Hackett—Direct.) Q.—Will you refer to the record that you kept there day by day and give us the daily catch or 1889? A.—For Behring Sea? Q.—Give it on the coast first and then Behring Sea? Mr. Lansing:—Would it not be well to put in the num ber of boats and men first? Q.—What number of boats had you? A.—I had six boats and the stern boat. Q.—Was the stern boat much used? A.—Not much. Q.—What crew had you, white or Indians? A.—White. Q.—How many men? A.—23 men all told. Q.—Will you now give us the daily catch, first on the coast, and then in Behring Sea, for 1889? A.—Do you want me to go over the whole of it, sir? Q.—Yes, the daily catch? A.—February 7th, 5 seals; 9th, 2; 10th, 32; 11th, 7; 17th, 2; 18th, 44; 21st, 1.3; 25th, 16; that 20 is to the end of February. March 4th, 2; 5th, 4; 7th, 11; 8th, 9; 10th, 10; 11th, 10; 13th, 11; 15th, 6; 16th, 10; 21st, 6; 22nd, 2; 24th, 23; 25th, 15; 26th, 29; 271 h, 2; 28th. 8; 31st, 23. April 4th, 4; 9th, 12; 11th, 5; 13th, 3; 15th, 1; 16th, 5; 17th, 4; 18tb, 3; 19th, 12; 25th, 2. May 7th, 29— Mr. Lansing:—I would like to know, Mr. Beique, the object of the coast catch for 1889 going in; there is no claim for it, is there, in any case? Mr. Beique:—We have lost the season for 1887, the whole 3° season, the coast catch as well as the Behring Sea catch. Mr. Lansing:—This is 1889. Mr. Beique:—The limit that is agreed upon is up to 1891. (To witness):—Go on, Captain. A.—8th, 4; 9th, 22; 10th. 8; 12th, 85; 13th, 14; 14th, 39; 15th, 68; 16th, 51; 18th, 16; 25th, 46; 27th, 5; 29th, 13; 30th, 12. June 2nd, 11; 4th, 9; 10th, 30; 21st, 8. Q.—Was that the whole of the coast catch? A.—The whole of the coast catch. Q.—Can you give the Behring Sea catch for the same var? A.—July 6th, 96; 9th, 20; 11th, 129; 12th, 38; 19th, 65; 22nd, 55; 25th, 78; 28th, 56; 29th, Wm 30th, 170." August 5th, 77;- 6th, 152; 7th, 18; 3th, 20; 9th, 19; 10th," 6; 11th, 44; 14th, 115; 15th. 57; 16th, 49; tetap.1.316 in Behring Sea. Q.—-How soon after the 16th did you leave Behring Sea? A.—I came out of Behring Sea on the 22nd of August. Q.—What kind of weather had you from' the 16th to the 22nd? A.—It was not favorable for sealing. Q.—I belieye you sealed in Behring Sea in 1890 on the same schooner? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were there a part of July and part of August? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—You remember what parts of each month you were there? A.—I think I have got that; I started sealing on the 8th of July,sir. Q.—And you remained in the Sea up to what time? A.—I gave up sealing on the 11th of August. Q.—What kind of weather had you in 1890 in Behring Sea? A.—The weather was pretty bad in 1.890. Q.—How did it compare with the weather that you had in 1889, better or worse? A.—Well, in July, 1889, we sealed 10 days; in 1890 we sealed 11 days. Q.—And how did August, 1889, compare with August 1890? A.—Only four days. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty;—How many days did you have in August, 1889? A.—Eleven, sir. Q.—When did you stop sealing in 1890, captain? A.— august 11th. Q-—And that was about 10 days' earlier than you did in 1889? A.—Yes. Q-—Did you stop sealing then on account of bad weather? A.—Yes. 10 Q-—And you stopped in 1889 on the same account? A.— No, I was afraid of seizure in 1889. Q-—When did you first hear that seizures were being made in 1889? A.—Oh, I can't just exactly tell you when I first heard of it; I was always afraid of it from the time I entered. Q-—There had not been any seizures made in 1888, had there? A.—I think there was; wasn't there? I don't just remember but we have always been afraid of it, you know from the start. Q.—From what vessels did you hear it? A.—T heard it from several vessels in Behring Sea. Q.—What vessels did you speak? A.—Well, I didn't just remember now who they were. Q.—Can you name any captain that told you of a seizure? A.—I remember one who told me he thought he saw a boat after him. Q.—Who was it? A.—He is dead now; perhaps it might be as well not to mention it. It was Captain Dodd, of the "Maggie Mac. 30 Q.—When was that? A.—That was about the first of August. Q.—And you stayed in three weeks after that? A.—Yes. Q.—And then left for fear of seizure? A.—Yes. Q.—The weather had nothing to do with it? A.—No. Q.—When you speak of bad weather, I suppose you refer merely to jud what you experienced in a certain locality, and not to the general weather for the season? A.—When we have bad weather in Behring Sea it is generally all over. Q.—The same land of weather all over the Sea? - A.— 4° As a rule that has been my experience. Q.—You do not know what other vessels have experienced? A.—No. Q.—I think you did not give the total catch of seals that had been made in 1890. What number was it? A.—633 Q.—In the Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many boats did you have? A.—Six boats and a stern boat. Q.—How much of a crew? A.—Twenty-three. Q.—And what is the tonnage of the "Annie C. Moore?" A. •* —One hundred and thirteen. Q.—Registered? A.—Yes. Q.—Anil up to August the 11th. you got 633 se-als? A.— Yes. Q.—Had vou been sealing before 1889, captain? A.—In 1888. Q.—What vessel were you in? A.—The "Annie C. Moore?" Q.—Was she in Behring Sea in 1S88? A.—She was. Q.—Did you have a large or small catch? A.—Small catch. 60 Didn't leave here until the 21st of June. q.—What time did you enter the Sea? A.—About the 20th of July. Q.—How long did you remain? A.—Until about the 22nd of August. I have got no record of that. Q.—What was yonr total catch? A.—Somewhere near 800. Q.—Did that include the upper coast? A.—No, I wasn't on the coast at all. 66o io 20 30 <o 50 60 (Charles Hackett—Cross—Re-direct.) Q.—And you had the same outfit, six boats and a stern boat and the same number of crew? A.-—Yes, sir. Q.—Were you afraid of seizure that year? A.—No. Q.—You left about the same date that you did in 1888? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—On account of the weather? jY—No. Q.—Close of the season? A.—I thought I had got pretty near all I could get, I had green -men for hunters, they never had been at the business before. Q.—That was your first years? A.—First year's experience. Q.—When you say you left the Sea on the 22nd that doesn't mean that that was the last day you lowered? A.—That was the day I came through the pass. Q'.—And your last lowering day was how many days before that? A.—I couldn't tell that because I have no record. Q.—Well, about? A.—Well, perhaps four or five days. Q.—In 1889 how many days before you went out of the pass was your last lowering day? A.—About four days, I think. Q.—Have you anv book with the record of your catch in 1888? A.—No, I haven'fll Q.—Did you have one? A.—Yes, I had one. Q.—Where is it? A.—I don't know; I lost it. somewhere. Q.—How long ago did you lose it? A.—I couldn't tell you. I tried to find it; if I had it you could have it. Q.—Does every one of those days that you refer to as your daily catch in 1889 represent lowering days? A.—Represent lowering days. Some days are better than others; those are the days we lowered. Q.—For instance, on July 27th you took three seals; is that, a lowering day? A.—I don't know, they might have been out jud a little while and come back again; it may have got bad. Q.—May have been shot from the schooner? A.—No. Q.—On"the 29th you took four; that may have been an hour? A.—Yes. Q.—So this does not show four lowering days? A.—Well, it may be they was just a little while out; no, it does not. Q.—Do you know, captain, who was the captain of the "Juanita" in 1890? A.—I think it was Clark, if I am not mistaken, I don't know, I wouldn't be too sure of it; I know be was in here, but what sbio I couldn't tell you. Q.—Is he dead? A.—No. Q.—Is he here in Victoria? A.—I think so. Re-direct examination by "Mr. Beique: Q.—You have been asked as to whether you were afraid of being seized in 1888 and you said "No!" You commenced to give an explanation and were stopped. Why weren't of being seized in 1888 and you said "No." You cemmenced and gave an explanation and were stopped. Why weren't you afraid of being seized? A.—We had received instructions from the customs house here that we weren't to be seized. Q.—You have been asked as to the "Maggie Mac." Do you know if ttieT "Maggie Mac" was lost? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what year was she lost? A.—1892 or 1893. Q.—Was the captain and crew lost? A.—She never has been heard tell of nor any of her crew; some of the records, they say, had been picked up. Q.—Who was her captain? A.—John Dodd. Q.—Had he been captain for several years? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—You have been asked as to the weather in Behring Sea, anel you said that in your experience the weather was about the same all over Behring Sea, I suppose you mean all over 661 3° (Charles Hackett—Re-direct—Re-cross.) the sealing grounds? A.—Well, that is what I mean here, certainly. I didn't go from where we sealed, away cross to Copper Islands, at all. There is some difference in the weather there, but in the short distance we sealed in I do not think there is much difference in the weather. Re-cross examination by Mr. Dickinson: 10 Q-—What memorandum do you refer to for 1889 and 1890? A.—My own. .Q.—Did you keep a memorandum of your position when you sealed in Behrmg Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Roth in the year 1889 and the year 1890 did you seal in substantially the same position? A.—Pretty much, I think. Q.—The tear of seizure did not move you off the ground that you selected? A.—Well, we have always had that fear. Q.—Did you change your sealing grounds? A.—Very often we did. 20 Q.—Did you change it in 1889? A.—We kept out of sight as much as possible, but we got back again on it. Q.—But you sealed on the same ground in 1889 and 1890? A.—Yes. Q.—You selected your own ground for sealing? A.—Oh. yes. Q.—What is your largest catch in the season of 1889 in the Behring Sea? A.—One hundred and seventy. Q.—What was your location? A.—Latitude 57.25 and longitude 173. Q.—That is to the westward of the Pribyloff Islands? A. —About ninety miles. Q.—Were you eastward of the Pribyloff Islands at all that year? A.—No, sir. Q.—Give us the variation of your position during the season, as near as you can? A.—There is not much variation. Q.—You remained on the same ground pretty much all the time? A.—All the time. Q.—What' was your largest catch in 1890? A.—Ninety - 40 eight. Q.—What was your latitude and longitude? A.—56.43 and 172.40. Q.—Did you change much from that position in 1890? A. —Thirty or forty miles. Q.—Did you fish anywhere near or in view of what is known as the volcano? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you sight more than one volcano? A.—There"are three, I think. Q.—Did you fish anywhere within 100 miles of any of the 5° volcanoes? A.—No. Q.—You did not fish within 100 miles of Bogosloff? A.— No, sir. Q.—Give us generally the position in which you sealed in 1888? A.—It is somewhere about the same position. Q.—You have not got it in your book? A.—No, sir, I have not. Q.—About how much further south is it than the places you fished in 1889 and 1890? A.—I do not know, I am sure. I was new in the business then and these positions were given to me and I fished pretty near to there. Q.—Did you ever fish in the eastward of the Pribyloff Islands? A.—Never. Q.—Nor near the Bogosloff volcano? A.—No. One year I fished in 58.30 and 173. Q.—In 1889 you were spoken and were told that they were seizing? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—Where were you spoken and told they were seizing? A.—Some where off there. 60 662 (Charles Hackett—Re-cross—Re-direct.) Q.—On the fishing grounds? A.—Yes. Q.—Were you told what had been seized and warned? A. —1 do not recollect. I know that I was told at that time that I had better take care as he had seen the boat. He said he had seen smoke and he ran away from it. Q.—You said you ran in and out; now where did you run to? A.—We got off the position 20.or 30 miles. Q.—Further to the westward of Pribyloff? A.—Yes, sir. IO Q.—The warnings and seizures were principally to the westward of the Pribyloff? A.—I think the most seizures were done in longitude 168 and 169 and along there. Q.—In 1889 and 1890, did you keep any separate account of the kind of seals you took? A.—No, sir. Q.—I suppose you took all sorts of seals that came along? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Small, large, extra large and wigs? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And grey pups and brown pups? A.—Yes, sir. 20 Q-—Did you get a considerable number of pups? A.—We get very few pups in Behring Sea. Q.—You got some? , A.—I do not know. I cannot say I did. Q.—You got some small seals? A.—Very few. Q.—Mostly all wigs? A.—No, sir. Q.—Mostly all large? A.—No, just the average run, three ! and four and five years old. Q.—How are they classified? A.—We did not classify them here at all. We did not have anything to do with 30 that. Q.—You mean the sealers did not classify them? A.—I don't think anyone else in Victoria did that I know of. I did not at all events. Q.—You know of the classification of wigs? A.—Yes. Q.—You know what an extra large seal is? A.—Yes. Q.—And you know a large seal as distinguished from an extra large? A.—I only know what I do myself. I do not know how they classify them in London. Q.—You know that there are pups? A.—Yes. 4° Q.—And you know that they have different prices for them? A.—They have some very large pups at times, too. Q.—I understand. But you know that there are different prices according to the size of the seal? A.—Yes. Q.—In your estimate of seals you put them all in as so many seals? A.—Yes in the market. Re-direct examination by Mr. Beique. Q.—Did you ever catch any gray pups in the Behring Sea? c0 A.—I cannot fill you that ever I did, sir. Q.—And if you did, it was only one or two, or only a few? A.—I would not notice them, I would have to turn up the amount of seals before I could tell you how many pups 1 had, • if I had any." Q.—It would be very few any way? A.—Yes, very few. Q.—Did you sell any of the skins in any of those years? A.—Where. Q.—In Victoria? A.—The fird year I was sealing, I sold them in Victoria. 60 Q.—And what about the other years? A.—I never sold them since. Q.^-Was there any difference made for the purposes of sale or for fixing the price between the wigs and the pups and the different sizes? A.—Here in Victoria? 0,—Yes. A.—Never that I know of. Q.—They were sold in a bulk? A.—That is the way I sold my own in the first place. Re-cross-examination bv Mr. Dickinson. Victor Jacobsen was re-called as a witness on the part of Great Britain. His testimony was taken out of order by consent of counsel. 2o Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—You were in the Behring Sea in 1888? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—In what schooner? A.—The "Mountain Chief." Q.—How many boats did you have? A.—There were five canoes and I had also one. Q.—When did you get into the Sea? A.—About the first part of August. Q.—You had Indian hunters? A.—Yes. Q.—And you stayed until when? A.—Until the first part of 4o September. Q.—How was it that you were so late in getting in? A.— On account of the seizures in 1887,we could not get any in- dian hunters to go up to the Sea. I had to get a guarantee from the Custim House that there would be no seizure. The Indians were in Victoria from the coast, and I could have arranged with them here, if I had the guarantee from the Custom House. Bui we did not get away from the coast before the 25th of June. Q.—You could not leave as you could not get Indians until you got word from the Custom House that you would not be seized? A.—No. Q.—How many seals did you get in that month in 1888 in the Behring Sea? A.—About 900. Q.—You were there in 1889 in the "Minnie?" A.—Yes. Q.—What was your catch up to the day of the seizure of the Minnie? A.—4J8 or 420. Q.—That was between what dates? A.—I went in on the 27th of June. Q.—You were there in 1890? A.—Yes, in the "Minnie." Q.—What time did you get into the Sea that year? A.— About the middle of July. Q.—How many boats and what number of hunters did you have? A.—Eight canoes and two boats but one ran away from me. I had Indian hunters. Q.—Did you have that be>at all tm? season? A.—No, he ran away on the coast off the Kodiak islands. Q.—Did you have him in the Sea? A.—No. I had only eight canoes and myself. 664 (Victor Jacobsen—Direct—Cross.) Q.—When did you leave the Sea? A.—On the 25th of August I left the huting grounds. Q.—What was your catch that year? A.—About 1,600. Q.—That was in Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—Did many of the schooners make a good catch in Behring Sea that year? A.—Well, I was the high line until I think the Viva came in. io Cre>ss-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—Have you any memorandum to show what day you went into the Sea in the various years? A.—No. Q.—Where did you get your memorandum from? A.— From my own head, and I always keep it there, too. Q.—.And all this information comes from there? A.—That is what it did. Q.—Did you ever keep any memorandum to aid your head? A.—Not myself, no. Q.—And when you say 900 skins, that information is not 20 quite exact? A.—Not exact to the skin. Q.—It is quite a ways off, is it not? A.—No, not as far as I know. Q.—In 1888, you said the catch was 900? A.—Yes. Q.—What boat were you in that year? A.—The "Mountain Chief." Q.—You had six canoes and a boat? A.—I had no boat. I had five canoes and a canoe for myself. Q.—Did you yourself hunt? A.—Yes. ,0 q.—You are a good shot? A.—Well, I did the best I could that time. I just started then. Q.—Is it customarj' for you to hunt about the same length •&S^pme during the day that your hunters do? A.—No, I had to salt the skins and do the work on the schooner, and I only had one man left on the vessel. I would salt the skins and then go out afterwards, and come back first again to haul in the seals. Q.—Have you seen recently any correct account of the number of skins the "Mountain Chief" took in 1888? A.—I have 4° not. Q.—Is not 800 nearer correct than 900? A.—No, I do not think it is. Q.—Did you make a return to the Custom House? A.— No, not at that time. Q.—Did anybody else make a return for the "Mountain Chief"? A.—No. Q.—Mr. Jacobsen, is not 825 the correct number taken that year? A.—No, it is not. Q—What is it? A.—It is nearly about 900. 5 Q.—What is the correct date when you went into Behring Sea that year? " A.—Well, I have not got exactly the correct date, but it was in the first part of August. Q.—Was it the first of August or the first part of August? A.—I cannot say it was the 1st of August. Q.—Was it the last of July? A.—I cannot say that for certain, but I know it was about the first part of August. Q.—What was your last lowering day in 1888? A.—I lowered about the very last day in the Pass, and got sixty odd g0 skins. I went out of the Pass after we took in water in the Pass. The canoes saw seals in the morning after they filled with water and they lowered and I got sixty seals right in the Pass. Q.—That was about the first of September? A.—It was between the third and the seventh of September. I cleared the Pass on the seventh of September. Q.—You were sealing up to the seventh of September that year? A.—Yes. Q.—The explanation you gave for being in the sea so late was because you started out so late? A.—Yes. Q.—You had a hard time getting hunters that year and you wanted to make up in the last part of the season what you lost in the first part? A.—I was there to get the seal. That is what I was there for. Q.—You stayed a little later than usual for that reason? A.—I stayed to get the seals. We got in late and I did not have many seals and I wanted to get among seals and take my chances. Q.—You stayed later than usual that year? A.—That year before I came out on account of the seizures and this year was only my second year there. I was not scared of anything for I knew there were no seizures, and I stayed as long as I could on account of the weather. I stayed as long as I dared to on account of my small vessel. Q.—In 1889 you were seized, I believe? A.—Yes. Q.—About the 27th of July? A.—No, on the 15th. Q-—And you say that up to the 15th of July.you had 218 skins? A.—I had more on the coast before I went in. Q.—You carried some of them into the Sea? A.—About half of them. Q.—I Suppose you will be here again for cross-examination on another claim? A.—I suppose so. Q.—In 1890, you.had eight canoes and two boats? One boat ran away on the west coast. Q.—You used the boat for hunting seals yourself? Yes. Q.—How many Indians did you have in each canoe? Two. Q.—Did they have guns or spears in 1890? A.—Botl and spears. Q.—About what time of the year did you go into the A.—About the middle of July, so far as I remember. Q.—And when did you come out? A.—The last day I sealed was on the 21st of August. Q.—Where you warned Q.—Did you come out because you were afraid be seized? A.—No. Q.—Did you come out for water? A.—I came out because I thought I had sealed enough. I had then four or five hundred seals more than I had any salt for. Q.—You made an unusual catch that year? A.—That is what I did. Q.—The fact is that you made a larger catch than you counted upon making? A.—That is what I did. Q.—And you had so many skins that you found that you had not brought salt enough to salt them? A.—Yes, I did not have a great deal of means to get all these things, the year after I was seized. T did not have a great deal of store list and everything else that year. I didn't have much money after I was seized. Q.—Did they take all your salt the year before? A.—No. Q.—They did not take any, did they? A.—They took some. Q.—How much did they take? A.—Three or five sacks. don't remember which. Q.—How much did it weigh all together? A.—About 100 pounds to the sack. They took about 400 or 500 pounds of salt. Q.—Whaf tain Chief." Q.—What canoes. Q.—How many canoe for myself. were equipment did you have boats? A.—The "Moun- year? A.—Four ——n IO 20 GGG (Victor Jacobsen—Cross—Re-direct.) Q.—At what date did you go into the Sea that year? A.— Some of the last days of July. Q.—Why did you go in so late that year? A.—We sealed pretty near all the time we could on the coast fird. And remember my schooner was small, and we had a lot of head winds. It always took me a month or six weeks to go. It was not all fun to go 1,500 or 1,600 miles with that little vessel. Q.—What time did you come out that year, 1887? A.— On the 14th or 17th of August. Q.—Were you warned out? A.—No, I did not stay long enough to get warned. Q.—Were you afraid of seizure? A.—Yes. . Q.—You have explained that the reason you came out in 1890 on the 25!.h of August was that you did not have salt enough to salt 3Tour skins? A.—Not alone that, I had a big catch and the Indians thought they had all the seals they ■ wanted and had made all the money they wanted. They didn't want to work any more and I had to come out, and certainly I was short of salt too. . Q.—Was that the only reason that you came out, that you were short of salt? A.—I would have stayed longer still if I could make the Indians work, but the Indians had sp many seals for the season then that they did not care about working any more. Re-direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: 30 Q.—I want you to describe just what happened on a good sealing day in July or August in the Behring Sea? What time do you send out our canoes in the morning? A.—Shortly after tfte first day light. They do not go out so early now as they did when the3' used guns. Q.—I am speaking about a fine day when you are among the seals. How far away do those canoes go away from the schooner? A.—We start out in different courses, and move around so as to keep clear of one another. If the seals are 40 plentiful we may not get two or three miles away from the schooner during the whole day. Q.—And if they are scarce you go further? A.—Yes, we go hunting around all day. Q.—And in that radius you find one or two seals together sometimes? A.—Y-js, and sometimes twenty. Q.—So that you would have the canoes surrounding the schooner at a distance of from two or three miles to ten or fifteen miles a day? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And as they got "further away from the schooner they 50 would be further from each other? A.—When we had the guns, and if the seals were not plentiul round the schooner the canoes and the boats would work up to where the most shooting was had. We might go ten or fifteen miles from the schooner, and another thing we always hunt a little against the wind. Wherever the wineTblows from that is the direction we hunt. This closed the examination of the witness. 60 Robert James Ker was recalled as a witness on the part of Great Britain. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Mr. Ker, you work or R. P. Rithet & Company, Limited? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And they were the persons who fitted out the "Maggie Mac" in the years that she was sealing? A.—Yes, they acted as agents for her. Q.—And they received the skins at the end of the season or the purposes of sale? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was the captain in the habit of reporting to you the number of seals that were caught on the voyage? A.—Yes, he always reported and we always had them tallyed into our warehouse. Q.—You had charge of that part of the business for R. P. Rithet & Company at that time? A.—Yes.: Q.—Can you give us the catch of the "Maggie Mac" in the Behring Sea in the year 1888? A.—No, I cannot give it to you for 1888. Q.—Why? A.—Because we did not act as agents for her 20 that year. Q.—Can you give us the catch in the Behring Sea for the year 1889? A.—Yes. Q.—What was it? A.—One thousand two hundred and ninety skins. Q.—Do you know how many boats the "Maggie Mac" had? A.—I believe she had six boats. Q.—Do you know that yourself? A.—I know the crew that she had on board. I know she took 23 white men and she would have six boats for them. Q.—Do you know what time she entered the Behring Sea and what time she came out? A.—I cannot say. Q.—Did the captain make any- return at all showing what time he left the sea? A.—No, I do not think he woujd. Q.—Can you give us the catch of the "Maggie Mac" in Behring Sea in 1890? A.—Yes, 847 skins. Q.—What was the equipment of the ship that year? A.— Just the same, six boats. Q.—You might give us the total catch for the coast and Behring Sea in 1889 and 1890? A.—In 1889 it was 2,067, and in 1890 it was 1,954. 30 40 SO 60 Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Did you have charge of this matter in 1889? A.—Yes. I had charge of the accounts and the business dealing with the schooners. Q.—Did you make any return to the customs house with regard to it? A.—I did not. Q.—Did the master? A.—I do not know whether he gave returns then or not. I fancy he did. He might have. Q.—Have you any absolute knowledge as to the fact whether these figures which you have given include the upper coast catch or not? A.—The figures I have given for the Behring Sea I know are for the Behring Sea. Q.—Do they include any of the upper coast catch? A.— Not outside two or three. Perhaps a few skins. Q.—When they transshipped at Sand Point or any point near the entrance to the Sea? A.—I think not. Q.—Then how do you know? A.—No, in every case they were transferred. Q.—Do you know in these cases you have given A.—In those two cases I e*annot say for sure whether they were or not. Q.—You cannot tell whether they were one hundred or two hundred or three hundred taken on the upper coast catch? A.—Oh, yes, I can. Q.—How? A.—From the return of the insurance. 668 (Robert J. Ker—Cross.) 'Maggie Mac" am sure, where it A.—Oh, yes, they A.—They do not Q.—What was the upper coast catch of the in 1889? A.—Her upper coast catch was 613. Q.—Were these returned? A.-—I believe these were return ed. Q.—Were they returned in 1890 also? A.—No, I believe they kept them all on board for 1890. Q.—What was her lower coast catch in 1890? A.—1,107. Q.—In the Behring Sea return, you have induded some of the coast catch? A.—No, it could not very well be that. They always turned us in the total for insurance purposes, and they are always e^ict or nearly so. Q.—Where did you get your information? A.—From the captain. Q.—Where are you getting this information from now.? A. I got it now from the vouchers. Q.—Have you got the vouchers? A.—I have not all the vouchers here, but I have some of them. Q,—Does it show the daily catch? A.—No. Q.—What does it show? A.—It shows the total catches. Q.—Have you got the captain's original report? A.—1 have not. Q.—Where is it? A.—T do not know, I is now. Q.—Did he make any original report? always make a report. Q.—Do you keep those original reports? always make a written report, their report might be made verbally at the end of the journey, or they would send a slip down or something like that. Q.—Still you are ready to swear that that only includes the Behring*Sea? A.—I am ready to swear that by my vouchers it does. Q.—But not from the captain's vouchers? A.—I do not know that I have any vouchers from the captain. Q.—What do you mean by saying that you know it from the insurance? A.—The report is turned in to place in the insurance on the skins from that day. Q.—What was her upper coast catch? A.—The 1,107 take in the whole coast catch. I cannot divide them. Q.—You are not ready to say whether all these seals were taken in Behring Sea? A.—1 can tell that 847 were taken in Behring Sea, because 1,107 were returned us from Sand Point, and they were insured from that day. Q.—Was there a transshipment of skins in 1889 from that point? A.—I cannot swear if they were tranderred or if they were kept aboard, the schooner. Q.—You do not knew if they were transferred in 1889? A.—I cannot sa3' without referring to the vouchers. Q.—You won't swear that this represents only the Behring Sea catch? A.—Yes, I am prepared to say that 847 represents the Behring Sea catch. Q.—And where is your Sand Point catch? A.—The 1,107 that were returned from Sand Point. Q.—As I understand there are three catches in 1889? A. —Yes. Q.—That is the lower coast catch and the upper coast catch and the Behring Sea catch? A.—Yes. After he left the harbor here and sealed on the lower coast, and then sealed perhaps up to Sand Point his catch would total up 1,107. He was sealing all the time possibly. He could come in here and land some skins and then go on sealing again. Q.—He did not trans-ship on the west coast? A.—Not that year. Q.—And did not come in to Victoria again with his lower coast catch? A.—No, he could not have come to Victoria. Q.—Was there a trans-shipment of skins in 1889 at Sand Point. That is the year in which you tedified there were 1,- 290 skins taken in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, I believe there was a transfer in that year. Q.—At Sand Point? A.—I cannot say if it was at Sand Point or not. Q.—Were they transferred on the west coast? A.—I would not be certain. Q.—That 1,290 might include some of the catch from the west coast up tc Behring Sea? A.—It might a few. Q.—You cannot tell how many? A.—No, I cannot tell. Q.—It would not appear by the captain's return? A.— Oh, yes, I would know from his return, certainly. Q.—You have not his return? A.—I have not the vouchers here. I merely took this memorandum, from the vouchers. Q.—You are not prepared to swear that that 1,290 merely includes the Behring Sea catch? It may include the upper coast catch? A.—TheseT>13 were transerred at the time, hey don't do any sealing on the upper coast. . Q.—When were they tranderred? A.—I think in July. I cannot swear to the day now. I have not the memorandum with me. '' '*' !'*j Q.—You don't know exactly when the^' were traiid'Trod? A.—No, I cannot say exactly. Q.—You don't know the day when the vessel stopped sealing in Behring Sea? A.—No. Q.—Nor when she started sealing? A.—No. Q.—The captain's return does not show that? A.—I think not; not the return that I have. Re-direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—I understand you to say Mr. Ker, that the usual course of business was for the captain when he arrived at Sand Point to report his coast catch for the purpose of insurance? A.—Yes. Q.—And in that report you insured the skins? A.—Yes. Q.—Is it from the books in your office and the papers relating to ffia't transaction that you know the number of skins that were caught in Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you have charge of any schooners in 1890? A.— We had charge of the "Annie C. Moore," and the "Maggie Mac." Q.—In 1889, did you have any other vessels? A.—Just the two. Q.—In 1888, die! you have charge of any others? A.—No, 1889 was our fird year. The witness was not further examined. Mr. Bodwell:—If my learned friends want any more information from this witness I can bring him back with the vouchers for the accounts. Mr. Dickinson:—As far as the oral testimony of this witness is concerned, he has given no evidence except that he is the custodian of these papers. We do not believe that he has given any evidence at all in reference to the case. Mr. Peters:—We think he has. Mr. Bodwell:—If you are satisfied that the eddence he has given, with regard to the vouchers, is correct we need not bring him back to produce the vouchers. Mr. Dickinson:—If you are satisfied,- we are satisfied. I can say in all frankness that I do not regard this as testi- 6.7 O (Robert E. McKdl—Direct.) mon3r at all. If you are willing to take the risk of leaving It as ft is then we are satisfied. Mr. Bodwell:—Then we will bring this witness back with the vouchers. Mr. Dickinson:—We do not ask this. The Commissioners then rose. Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, Between Great Britain and the United States of America Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 22, 1896. At 10.30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. Gustave Hansen, a witness produced on the part of Great Britain, was recalled for cross-examination in continuation of his testimony taken out of order by consent in the case of the "Winnifred." Robert E. McKeil, a witness produced on the part of Great 3° Britain, recalled. The testimony of the witness applies in general to all the cases on the question of catch, including the "Carolena." Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Captain McKeil, you have been examined with regard to the things that took place in the years 1886 and 1887? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—You were mader of the "Beatrice" in 1889? A.—Yes, 40 sir. Q.—How many canoes did you carry? A.—I carried 12 canoes on the coast. Q.—Where did the "Beatrice" come from that year? A.— From Japan. Q.—Did you bring her over? A.—I brought her over that^ same year. Q.—When did you arrive here? A.—I arrived here somewhere about the 1st April, 1889. Q.—You went sealing on the coast with 12 canoes and with 5° what crew? A.—I earried one boat, five Japanese and one Avhite man besides myself. Q.—You had 12 Indians, five Japanese, four seamen, the cook, the captaiu and the mate? A.—:That was in the Behring Sea. Q.—That does not apply to the coast? A.—I had 12 canoes, that is, 24 Indians, on the coast, I had four Japanese sailors and a Japanese cook, and the mate and myself, who were both white men. 60 Q-—Did you make a catch on the coast? A.—I caught 499 on the coast. Q.—Did you go into the Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you make a catch in the Behring Sea? A.—I made something over 600 in the Behring Sea. Q.—How many canoes did you take into the Behring Sea? A.—Six. Q.—What crew did you have besides the Indians? A.— Five Japanese, the mate, a white man, and myself. Q.—How was it you had such a small crew then? A.- The schooner was strange on the coast and the Indians were afraid. Q.—Afraid of what? Did thy not know the owner? A.— They did not know the owner and they were afraid about their pay. Q.—And therefore in going into the Behring Sea you had 1Q only a small crew? A.—Only a small crew. Q.—Do you remember at what date you got into the Bch- ring Sea? A.—Somewhere between the 4th and 10th of July. Q.—Had these Indians been in the Behring Sea before? A. —Some of them-had. Q.—When did you leave the Behring Sea that year? A.— I think about the 20th August. Q.—Can you give me your catch in the Behring Sea? A.— 630 odd I think I caught; I am not sure exactly. >o Q-—Does that include any seals caught outside Behring Sea? Or is it just the Behring Sea catch? A.—I think I caught three or four seals on the passage up the coast off Vancouver Island. Q.—Generally speaking, these 630 seals were caught in the Behring Sea? A.—Yes, all but three or four. Q.—What kind of hunters did you have? A.—Three of the Indian hunters were green; they had never been in the Behring Sea before; the other three had been in the Behring Sea before. 30 Q.—In addition to that did anything unusual happen? A. —I lod three of the canoes about the 13th of August, I think. Q.—Did you ever find them again? A.—I never found them again. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Was that with the men in them? Or did they simply go adrift? A —The men went adrift; we lost them in a fog. 40 SO 60 Direct examination continued by Mr. Peters: Q.—You lost half of your Indian hunters? A.—I lost half of my Indians" on the 13th August. Q.—Did that interfere with your hunting? A.—I did not hunt afterwards: I was hunting for the Indians from that until I left the Sea. Q.—So that, practically, vour hunting ended on the 13th of August? A.—Yes. Q.—I believe these three Indians afterwards got ashore somewhere? .4.—They got ashore at Ounalaska. Q.—During the time that you were looking for these Indians do you remember whether or not there were good days for fishing? A.—There were two good days, I remember well. Q.^-And you did not hunt on these days? A.—No. Q.—Had. you any fear of being seized by the cutter that 3'ear? A.—I cannot remember now. I kept to the westward, so that if there should be a cutter around I would not be likely to fall in with her. Q.—You kept to the wedward of what line? A.—Of the line from Ounalaska to the Pribyloff Islands. Q.—How far did you keep to the westward? A.—All the way from 40 to 100 miles, I. should say. Q.—Did you keep further west than you would otherwise have done for fear of the cutter? A.—Sometimes I did. Q.—I believe that on the way up that year you landed your coast catch. A.—I landed my coast catch at Clayoquot. IO 20 40 So 60 672 (Robert E. McKiel—Direct.) Q.—They you went from Clayoquot to Behring Sea? A.— No, I went from Clayoquot further down the coast to fetch my crew. Q.—Then you went to the Behring Sea? A.—Then I went to the Behring Sea. Q.—That ended the voyage for 1889, I believe? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what, ship? A.—In the "E. B. Marvin" of Victoria. Q.—How many boats had you? A.—On the coast we had six regular hunting boats and the stern boat. Q.—Did you fish on the coast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Can you give me your ce>ast catch up to Sand Point? A.—It was 1246. Q.—Did you land your coast catch there? A.—Part of it. Q.—Did you take any part of your coad catch into Behring Sea? A-—No, sir. Q.—Having completed your fishing on the coast did you go into the Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—With how many boats? A.—With seven boats. Q.—Besides the stern boat? A.—Besides the stern boat, yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember when you got into the Sea about? A.—I think between the 4th and 10th of July. Q.—And you stayed there until when? A.—I came out*of the Pass on the 2nd of September. Q.—Can you give me your catch in Behring Sea in that year? A.—918, I think. Q.—What sort of a season was 1890? A.—A very poor season. It was stormy, and there was too much wind to hunt in July and the first part of August. Q.—It set in fine after that? A.—There was some fine weather afterwards. Q.—But you did not happen to get the seals? A.—I did not find them. Q.—Do you remember when you practically stopped sealing for that year—do you remember your last day's sealing? A.—I cannot remember now, exactly; the last day I hunted was, I think, the 30th or 31st August; those were our last two days. Q.—Do you remember what success you had then? A.—I think I got about ten skins in the two days. Q.—Of course you have been sealing more or less, ever since? A.—Yes, I have been sealing every season since. Q.—Now, what sort of a crew did you have'in 1890? Did you have a good crew?^ A.—Yes, I had a good crew. Q.—Experienced hunters? A.—Some of them were experienced hunters and some of them were green hunters. Q.—But taking them all in all, they were a good crew? A.—Yes, sir, a good crew. Q.—As a matter of fact are there any gray pups caught in Behring Sea, or any quantity of them? Tell us your experience in this matter? A.—I may have got one or two in my own experience, but I cannot remember. I think I remember one or two, but no more. Q.—That is in your whole experience? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you have sealed for ten years? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you have only got one or two' gray pups in that time? A.—I may have got more than that, but I cannot remember. bei Q.—Whatever you may have got, it is a very trifling num- Cross-examination by Mr. Warren. (Robert E. McKiel—Cross.) Q.—You were in the "E. B. Marvin" hi 1890? Q.—What is her tonnage? A.—It is something over 100 tons registered; I do not remember the figures. Q.—She is one of the best boats in the harbour of Victoria? A.—She is as good as any, I do not say she is better. Q.—You had seven boats and the stern boat. Was that stern boat used for hunting'in 1890? A.—On the coast we hunted some in it but I do not remember that much hunting was done in the stern boat in the Behring Sea. Q.—Was there any hunting done in it in the Behring Sea? A.—I do not remember. Q.—How many men did you have in the Behring Sea in 1890? A.—I think it was 26 all told. Q.—SO that in each boat there were three men ? A.—Three men in each boat. Q.—And you entered the sea between the 4th and 10th of 20 July? A.—I think so, yes sir. Q.—What was your last lowering day in 1890? A.—I think the 30th or 31st August. Q.—You sealed right down to the Pass then? A.—No, I lowered last about 60 miles to the northward of the Pass. Q.—Did you go to the Unimak Pass that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you took 918 skins? A.—I think that was the number. Q.—You stayed pretty late and you say that the season 3° was stormy and poor—did you try to make up for the bad weather by staying late? A.—Oh, 3*es, I intended to stay late but the vessel began leaking. Q.—You were endeavoring to stay late that year because of its being a poor season throughout and you wanted to make up the results? A.—I would have stayed in longer; I had pro- visions and everything on board. I intended to stay in as long as the fine weather lasted. Q.—You were outfitted for a late season that year? A.—I do not know as I was. Q.—You have been on the witness stand before? A.—I have. Q.—And told when you left the Sea in the year you were examined about? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you stay later in 1890 than during the other seasons? A.—I stayed later than any time previous. Q.—You were on the Beatrice in 1889? A.—Yes. Q.—What was the tonnage of the "Beatrice? A.—About 60 tons, I think. Q.—And you had six canoes' in the Sea up to the 13th of August? A.—Yes, until about tha* time. Q.—Did you have a stern boat? A.—Yes. Q.—Was the stern boat used for hunting? A.—Yes. Q.—Was it used freouenfly or infrequently? A.—Well, every day we lowered the stern boat was used. Q.—So that up to the 13th of August you had but one boat and six canoes out'1 on lowering days? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And on the 13th vou sav vou lost three canoes? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And after that time vou did hot lower your boats? A.—No. sir, I did not lower after that. O.—Did you take anv seals after that? A —T do not think so; I may have picked uo one that was cruising around, but no considerable number; I did not lower. Q.—Von stayed in the Sea until about 20th August? A.— Yes. I think I came out about the 20th. e~V—Did you find your Indians at Ounalaska? A.—I did 43 40 SO 60 674 (Robert E. McKiel—Cross. Robert J. Ker—Direct.) not find them; they got ashore at Ounalaska, and went down on the "Gorwin"or the "Rush." Q.—They had been taken down before you arrived at Ounalaska? A.—No, I think "that it was about the time that 1 left the Pass. Q.—You did not stop at Ounalaska? A.—No, I did not stop at Ounalaska. Q.—What boat were you in in 1888? A.—I was in the "Mary Taylor" on the coast. Q.—Did you go into the Sea that year? A.—No, I did not go into the Sea. Q_Who was the captain of the "Theresa" in 1890? A.— Steele. Q.—Is he in Victoria? A.—I think so. Q_Who was the master of the "C. H. Tupper" in 1890? A.—Captain Kelly. - Q.—Is he in Victoria? A.—1 think he is. 20 Q.—She was in the Sea, was she not, in 1890? A.—I think she was. Q.—And the "Theresa" was in Behring Sea in 1890? A.— T suppose she was, but I did not see her. Q.—Who wa3 the master of the "Katherine," formerly the "Black Diamond, " in 1890? A.—I do not remember. Robert James Ker, a witness on the part of Great Britain, was recalled. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—Have you looked over any further papers or vouchers respecting the catch of the "Maggie Mac" for 1888, 1889, 1890? A.—Yes. Q.—What have- you found in 1889? A.—I found a letter from the captain. Q.—Have you that letter? A.—Yes. Q.—Will you produce it? A.—Yes. Q.—You know the captain's handwriting? A.—Yes. Q.—Is that letter in his handwriting? A.—Yes, that letter is in his hanelwriting. Q.—What is the date of that letter? A.—It is dated 29th June, 1889. Q.—Where was it written from? A.—-From Sand Point. Q.—In the usual course of business what was the occasion of writing that letter from Sand Point at that time? A.— Well, to advise us of the. fact of forwarding the catch down to us and also for insurance purposes. Q.—The catch was forwarded down to Victoria before the vessel went into Behring Sea, and that was the usual course of business? A.—Yes, sir. Letter received and marked Exhibit 30, G.B., Claim No. 1 Q.-^What was the "Wanderer" referred to in that letter? A.—The "Wanderer1' is a sailing schooner which brought down the skins from Sand Point to Victoria. Q.—Did these 613 skins arrive in Victoria? A.—Yes, they did. Q.—And afterwards the schooner "Maggie Mac" arrived down from Behring Sea with her catch in Behring Sea? Q.—Have you any other voucher with reference to the year 1890? A.—I have a letter of advice from the captain. Q- sir. Q.—It is dated Northeast Harbor, Shumign, July 5th, 1890? A.—Yes. Letter received and marked "Exhibit 31, G. B.," I"laim No. 1. ; Q.—What was the schooner which you have referred to there? A.—She was a steam schooner which acted as a sort of tender to bring down the skins that year. Q.—And this letter was written in pursuance of the usual course of business which you have spoken of a moment or two ago ? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know whether the HOT skins referred to in that letter arrived in Victoria? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you know whether or not the "Maggie Mac" afterwards arrived? A.—-Yes. Q.—She afterwards arrived at Yictoria with the catch from Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Give the catches for 1889 and 1890 on the "Maggie Mac?" A.—For 1889, 1290; for 1890, 847. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Does this letter, Exhibit 30, refer to the Behring Sea catch? A.—No, sir. Q.—Does Exhibit No. 31 refer to the Behring Sea catch? A.—No, sir. Q.—Have you any voucher or paper in the handwriting of the captain that does refer to the Behring Sea catch? A.— No, sir. Re-direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—How do yon know that the skins from Behring Sea arrived in Victoria? A.—They were tallied schooner on the arrival of the schooner. Q.—Who did that? A.—It was done by one of the warehousemen. Q.—How did the report come to you? A.—The report was handed in to the office and would be compared with the report or verbal statement of the captain of the vessel. Q.—And checked by you? A.—Yes. Q.—And an entry made? A.—Yes. Q.—And you kept that entry? A. —Yes. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Are the men who kept the tally here? might be; I cannot say whether they are or not. Q.—Could you state from your books who kept the tally? A.—Of course it would be hard to say; they would be turned in on slips and taken off these slips into the book. It is hard now to say what might have become of these slips. Q.—You do not keep the slips on file? A.—I do not think so. I think the warehousemen keep them for a while, and ten possibly they would be torn up. Q.—Is the same warehouseman in your employ now as then? A.—No, he is_not in our empl03rment. Q.—Where is he? A.—I fancy he is dead. Q.—Cannot you give a little better evidence than that about the matter? A.—I cannot. We have several warehousemen and it is very hard to say now who did tally the skins that day. Examination of witness closed. The Commissioners then took recess At half past two the Commissioners resumed their seats. 676 (William G. Goudie—Direct.) Laughlin McLean, a witness already examined in the case, on the part of Great Britain, was recalled, and continued his testimony. William G. Goudie was called as a witness on the part of io Great Britain and duly sworn. Mr. Bodwell:'—The evidence of this witness will be applied to the "Carolena" case and to all the other cases as regards the catch. Direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—You were hunting seal on the "Mollie Adams" in 1889, were you not? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you go into Behring Sea that year? A.—Yes. 20 Q.—Who was the master? A.—Captain Solomon Jacobs. Q.—He is not in this country now? A..—No, sir, he was lost. Q.—Did they have a mate that year? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did they have a navigator? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was the name of the navigator? A.—Wartz. Q.—Is he here in Victoria? A.—The last I heard from him he was in San Francisco. Q.—You were a hunter on board that schooner? A.—Yes, sir. 3° Q.—During the whole season? A.—Yes, in the Behring Sea. I was not on the coast. Q.—How many sealing boats had you? A.—Eight and the captain's. Q.—You had a white crew? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you lseep a record of the catch? A.—Yes. I had it at one time. Q.—Have you got it now? A.—No. Q.—Have you looked for it? A.—It is burnt. Q.—You found on enquiry at your house that the book was 4 burnt? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you know when it was burnt? A.—Some time this last summer. Q.—Can you state from memory when you entered the Behring Sea that summer? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When was it? A.—The 4th of July. Q.—Can you say when you quit hunting in the Sea? A.— No, I cannot. It was along somewhere about the 11th of July. Q.—You do not understand the quedion. I ask you when 50 you quit sealing in the Behring Sea? A.—The 15th of October. Q.—What was on the date the 11th of July that you spoke of just now? A.—We started sealing about 60 miles off Ounalaska. Q.—Was the 11th of July the day on which you started sealing in'the Behring Sea? A.—Yes, that was the first day Somewhere about th? 10th or 11th or along there. I do not remember correctty. Q.—How many seals did you catch in Behring Sea that. 60 year? A.—Well, some where alongSibout 1,500, as near as I e-an go to it. Between 1,500 and 1,000 or some where thereabouts. Q.—Did you get seaTs up to the time that you left Bejiring Sea? A.—The last day that we lowered was the 5th of Octo ber, and we got 120 that day. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Where were you born? A.—Newfoundland. Q.—How long have you been out on this Came in 1888. Q.—On the "Mollie Adams? A.—Came overland Gloucester, Massachusetts. Q.—How many years have you been seal hunting? Eight seasons. Q.—When did you enter the Sea in 1888? A.—I think it was about the loth of July on the Edward Welch. Q.—When did you enter in 1890? A.—Well, on the 4th of July I went in Unimak Pass. Q.—What day did you begin sealing in Behring Sea in 1888? A.—I do not know. I believe along the middle of July as near as I can go to it. Q.—Cannot you fix the date within a day or two? A.— Not for 1888, but I know it was in July. Q.—In 1890 when did you enter the Sea? A.—I was on the Sapphire that year. Q.—I ask you when did you enter the Sea in 1890? A.— Somewhere about the 12th of July in 1890. Q.—How do you fix the date? A.—I know it was the 12th of July in 1890 or about there. I pretty near know what time it was. Q.—Are you sure about it? A.—Well, I do not know I am certain about it, but I know it is along there somewhere. Q.—When did you begin sealing that year? A.—Well, we went in on the 12th and we started the second day after we was in. That would give us the 14th. Q.—In 1889, how many days after you entered the Sea did you begin sealing? A.—I do not know how many days, but it was not very many days after. Q.—Answer my question? A.—Probably it was five or six days. y.—What elid you do before that? A.—Sailed around looking for seals, and passing the time waiting until it was time to hunt. Q.—What date did you stop sealing in 1888? A.—The 7th of September, I think it was, we came out. Q.—That is when 3rou went out of the Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—How many days before that did 3'ou last lower? A.— The 28th was the last day we lowered. Q.—In 1890 what day did 3'ou go out of the Sea? A.—It was the 17th or 18th of August. Q.—And in 1889 you say you sta3'ed there until October the 5th? A.—October 5th was the last day we lowered. Q.—Did you hear any talk about an intention to raid the islands? A.—Well, we had been raiding the islands before that, sir. Q.—You had been? Q.—How many seals think somewhere about 360 or thereabouts. 350 and 400. Q-—Did you kill them with clubs? A.—Yes, clubs. Q.—You knew it was against the law of the United States to kill these seals on this island? A.—In fact, I did not know it was then. Q-—Did 3'ou hear anybody say it was against the law of the United States? A.—I was kind of green in the country then. I do not know as I did hear anyone say so. Q-—You did not observe anything from the action of the men or from the way the vessel was handled that would show they were going to evade the law, did you ? A.—The captain was master of his vessel and he could do what he liked with us in a way. Q-—How long after your last lowering was it before you raided the islands? A.—I think it was the 27th or 28th of September as near as I can recollect. A.—Yes, sir, before that, did you take off the island? A.—I It was between baaa 678 10 20 3° 40 5° 60 (William G. Goudie—Cross—Re-direct. Theodore Lubbe Direct.) Q.—When was your last lowering before that? A.—Oh, well, some time in August. Q.—Was it before the 15th of August, your last lowering day? A.—No, sir, the latter part of August. Q.—Between the 20th and 25th? A.—Somewhere thereabouts. Q.—Then when you say your total catch in Behring Sea was between 1,500 and 1,600 does that include the number you took in that raid? A.—That includes the whole business. Q_What is the tonnage of the "Mollie Adams"? A.—107 tons, I think. Q.—How many boats did you have, hunting boats? A.— Eight all told. Q.—And how many in a boat? A.—Two in a boat, 21 men all told, cex>k, three in the captain's boat. Q.—Now, Mr. Goudie, in that raid that you made you say that you took about 360, are you not mistaken and was it not 574 skins? A.—No, sir, I am not mistaken. Q.—How do you know? A.—Because I pretty near know. We counted them on deck, and I have often spoken of it since that it was less than four hundred. Q.—Did you count them yourself? A.—I saw the captain counting them and three or four of us were counting the skins the next day when we were salting them. Q.—Who was the captain, did you say? A.—Sol. Jacobs. Q.—Who else aided in that count of skins? A.—Well, the captain counted them and the navigator counted them, I don't know but that is all, he told us he got some 460. Q.—Did you count them? A.—I didn't. Q.—Was any memorandum put down separating those skins from the others? A.—I guess the captain put them down in his book. Q.—Did you see any memorandum? A.—No, I did not. Q.—Did you put down any memorandum of the number? A.—I put down a memorandum of the whole catch. I didn't put down them skins. Q.—Of the whole season's catch? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you keep an account of your own skins that you took? A.—I always do, yes. Q.—Did you count those 3'ou caught on the islands? A.— I never counted them. Q.—Did you get a lay on those clubbed seals? A.—Yes. Q.—And you do not know how many you killed on the islands? A.—How many I killed? Q.—Yes? A.—It is all divided in one pot. It was all shared alike; Sill it was on the lay. Q.—Which island was it? A.—SteGeorge's Island. Re-direct examination by Mr. Bodwell: Q.—You said a minute ago in giving an answer, 460, do you mean that? A.—No, I said it was somewhere about 400. Q.—What flag did the "Mollie Adams" fly that season? A. —The stars and stripes them days. Q.—You didn't say anything about that raiding to me when I was asking you to give evidence here? A.—No, I didn't suppose it would be brought up. Theodore Lubbe was called as a witness in rebuttal, on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn: Direct examination by Mr. Peters: 679 io 20 30 40 (Theodore Lubbe—Direct.) Q.—Mr. Lubbe, you reside in Victoria? A.—Yes. Q.—And have done business a number of years? A.— Since 1875. Q.—In what firm, Mr. Lubbe? A.—Martin Bates, Jr., & Company, of New York. Q.—And you carry on business here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that business is largely in the purchase of seal skins, is it not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1882, did you purchase the catch of the schooner "San Diego"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you got your original entry of the purchase of the "San Diego" in the year 1882? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What date did you purchase it? A.—September 27. Q.—Who did you purchase it from? A.—Captain J. L. Carthcut. Q.—What was the exact number purchased? A.—326 skins. Q.—You got 326 seals from Captain Carthcut? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1882? A.—27th of September, 1882. Q.—Did that, as a matter of fact, include the whole catch? A.—No, a very few skins sold by the captain to one of the officers in the customs house. Q.—And with that exception you got them all? A.—Got them all. Q.—Can you tell me whether that was or was not the Behring Sea catch? A.—Well, I can only tell you that Captain Carthcut told me: at the time. Q.—You got the whole cargo excepting those few that were sold? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That depends on the datement of Captain Carthcut, does it not? Mr. Peters:—The question I put was, that is the cargo that he bought in September, 1882. 60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—If you are going to undertake to contradict Capt. McLean, of course we must be somewhat strict about it. Q.—About a part of it 30U have no doubt, Mr. Lubbe? A. —Not the least. I paid very high for the skins, assuming them at the time to be Alaska seals. Mr. Dickinson:—You can tell a Behring Sea skin when you see it? A.—At certain times in the year, yes. Q.—Have you any doubt about these being Behring Sea skins? A.—I have no doubt, whatever. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not want the witness' doubts, if it may please the High Commission, but only the facts. Of course questions of doubt are always for the court. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—He is answering as an expert. Mr. Dickinson:—He has not been qualified. By Mr. Peters:—Q.—As a matter of fact, what quantity of skins have you dealt with, Mr. Lubbe, in your tune? A.—-Oh, a great many; I cannot sav how many. 68o io 20 30 40 SO 60 (Theodore Lubbe—Direct.) Q.—Is that one of the largest lines of your business? A.— Certainly. Q.—And is it your business, year by year, to examine skins? A.—I have been in the business for 34 years. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Buying and selling? A.—Buying and selling and manufacturing. Mr. Peters:—Q.—And you have during that time examined all kinds of skins, have you not? A.—Certainly. Q.—And is it your business so to do? A.—Decidedly. Q.—Now did you buy the skins from Captain Carthcut of the "San Diego" in the year 1883? A.—Yes, dr. On October loth, bought of J. H Carthcut 916 salted seals. Now, according to the captain's book Mr. Dickinson:—Never mind. Witness:—I mud say this, the book shows here — Mr. Peters:—Y our book shows it, that there would be a difference The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I think Judge King and myself will agree that you must keep within the strict rules when you attempt to contradict a witness. Mr. Peters:—The point I am getting at here is, that the catch for Behring Sea instead of being 329 was 916 or 917. And the question that he wants to bring out here, and Mr. Dickinson would not object to it if he considers a moment, that book contains an alteration of the figures seven and six, there being a doubt whether it is 916 or 917. The point is very small and tot worth arguing about. Q.—Can you tell me whether those are Behring Sea skins or not? A.—They were Behring Sea skins. Q.—You remember when the ship arrived from Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Mr. Dickinson:—He knows as an expert when the ship got in? A.—No, dr, from my correspondence I can tell. ' Q.—Have you correspondence there written at the time which shows you all these facts? Objected to by Mr. Dickinson: The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I think a person could look at it for the purpose of refreshing his recollection. Q.—You were in Victoria, and knew of her arrival? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And knowing of her arrival did you write a letter about it at the time? A.—We'll, on October 11, 1883, I telegraphed to New York, in cipher: "San Diego" arrived with 900 Alaskan seals." Mr. Dickinson:—That is your telegram to some one? A. —Yes, to New. York. Q.—That shows she had arrived before that? A.—I think she must have arrived the same day. Q.—Did you then, after that, have some correspondence with regard to Ihe purchase of those seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And did you actually purchase them? A.—Certainly I did. Q.—Well, for any ionger er in 1881. Q.—And how long did he continue master of her? A- do not know; Captain McLean came in, I think, in 1888. Q.—At all events, he was master in 1881, 1882 and 1883? A.—Those threa years. Q.—You know of that yourself? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—From having purchased his skins, I believe, for every year. A.—Yes. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q .—Can you tell the difference between a seal caught on the upper coast and the Behring Sea seals? A.—During these years? Q.—Will you answer that question? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—From the examination of the skins? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Suppose a skin was caught outside the pass, we will say in the Fair Weather Grounds in the month of July, could you tell where that seal was caught? A.—If you will allow me to tell you l will. Q.—I am going to ask the question? A.—But I won't answer them. Q.—From your knowledge as an expert in those skins, will you swear that they were caught in Behring Sea? A.—I saw the captain's books. Q.—Will you swear that they were caught in Behring Sea from your knowledge of skins? A.—No, I can't. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Mr. Dickinson stopped you at that point, you were going to say how you could tell that in 1883 Mr. Dickinson:—This testimony is admitted because he is an expert in the examination of seals. Now it is apparent from his testimony that he could not see where the seals were caught, that his tedimony is good for something only because he is an expert. I have rested'the cross-examination upon the single statement as to whether he could tell from those seal skins themselves, resting it upon his expert qualification, whether they were caught on the coast or in Behring Sea. He attempts to tell me what he got from hearsay information from some one; but that is not pertinent to the question. The inquiry is rested wholly upon him as an expert when he comes to pass upon seal skins, and he tells me the only question I care to ask him, that he cannot tell from the examination of the skin. Now, I submit that that cross-examination disposes of all that is material in this examination, because he is qualified as an expert, sworn only as an expert in his judgment of whether the seals were caught in Behring Sea or out of it. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Do you think that is entirely so, Mr. Dickinson. I was just glancing at the testimony given by Captain McLean, and that refers to a sale of the skins that Captain McLean says were caught in IO 20 40 50 682 (Theodore Lubbe—Re-direct.) Behring Sea, and which were sold here to Mr. Lubbe. Then if you get the transaction of sale, and find that it is on a different principle, but of the same year, you know, may you not very well come to the conclusion that that is the same transaction that Mr. McLean was speaking about, but that he was mistaken as to his numbers? Mr. Dickinson:—They have the benefit of that, and I am perfectly willing that the case should stand on their having the benefit of the 916 seals, so far as the number is concerned. I have not examined as to them. We are satisfied with the tedimony unless he says that those particular seals that Mr. Lubbe bought came from Behring Sea. Now, he can only say that because he is an expert, and because experts can tell the difference. He now says he cannot tell it, and I rest it there. By Mr. Peters: Q.—Mr. Lubbe, you were asked by Mr. Dickinson whether or not you can state whether you were in a position to tell whether these seals were actually Behring Sea seals or whether they were not; and you said you wanted to explain. . Now I simply want the explanation. What, did you intend to say, Mr. Lubbe? A.—Well, the Behring Sea skins I knew at the time; I paid for those skins, $10 apiece, while during the same year I shitped 13,436, and of the coast catch 527. Q.—You paid for these. Witness:—Oh, excuse me, this is 1883. Mr. Dickinson:—Now, Is it possible that what he paid per skin can.distinguish the skins? He is sworn on this point as an expert. Mr. Peters:—This witness simply comes here as a person conversant with certain facts. In order to satisfy my friend, when I came to ask him some quedions, I did show he was competent. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What way has he of telling where these skins that he bought out of that vessel in these two years came from except what he knows as an expert? Mr. Peters:—I think he has got one of the most practical reasons; that is to say he paid for them at the price of Behring Sea skins. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Then, assuming I am right about that, Mr. Dickinson puts the question, "Can you tell the skin of a seal'just taken out of thi Pass from one just taken in Behring Sea?" I understand him to say that he cannot, and that is all there is of it. Mr. Dickinson:—He stated further and broadly, on the gen eral question, that he cannot tell himself from the examina tion of the skins, whether it is Sea skin. the coast catch or the Behring 60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Put your question, and let us see what it is. By Mr. Peters:—Q.—I wish you to explain this. You were asked by Mr. Dickinson whether or not you could tell the difference between those skins which you got there, those 329, or the 916 in 1883, how it, was that you were ena"bled to say that those were Behring Sea, as contradistinguished from the coast catch; now I want your explanation? 683 io (Theodore Lubbe—Re-direct.) Mr. Dickinson:—Can it be possible that incompetent and hearsay testimony can be put in in this way under the pretense of an explanation, especially when it contradicts a man —has a tendency to contradid him, and is put in wholly for that purpose, when the man who may contradict is not put in the box? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— I do not understand that Mr. Peters intended to call out the information which he has obtained. Mr. Dickinson:—What else? This witness starts to say that it is on account of the price he paid for them. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you intend, Mr. Peters, by your question to the witness, to call out anything except what he derived from actual observation? 20 40 Mr. Peters:—Nothing else at all. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It seems to me, Mr. Dickinson, that this would be competent to prove that they were of the class of skins which are known in the trade as Behring Sea skins, that is to say, if the trade separate's skins into two classes, the coast skins and Behring Sea skins. If there is a demarkation and marked line known to be different, one caught at a different time of the year than the other, if then these skins were known to be ot the class ,0 of skins that were caught in the latter part of the year, and known as Behring Sea skins, I think that would have some bearing on the point, and might go to the full and necessary extent. I think it would be evidence that would be admissible, because if in the trade a very much larger sum is paid for one kind of skin than for another, one cannot shut his mind to this, that there must be some distinction known to the mercantile ?nind which puts its money out for different kinds of skins; and if there is this distinction and the witness could speak of it, I think it would be competent for him to do so, and to say whether the skin came under one category or the other. That would not necessarily prove that they were caught in Behring Sea and not outside of the Pass, but it is evidence for what it is worth. We think, Mr. Peters, that if the witness is cautioned not to answer anything based upon what any one told him, but solely from his own observation, that it is competent for him to do so, even though his answer may fall short, perhaps, as bearing on the matter of contradiction. That is another thing,; that is a thing for us. But so far as regards the admission of the testimony, he can testify as to what he knows based upon his experience and observation, not depending, however, on what has bee 11 told to him in the particular case. By Mr. Peters:—Q.—Now, Mr. Lubbe, will you explain how it is that you are enabled to tell whether these seals were caught in Behring Sea or on the coast? A.—First of all, by the absence of small sizes. In those years there was not one white man employed on the west coast hunting, and in fact, we had no white men in*the business of hunting seals. The only schooner then engaged was the "San Diego." And when those skins arrived, in fact all these three lots, I judged them to be Alaska females. Q.—What from? A.—From Behring Sea. Q.—From what did you judge them to be such? A.—From their appearance. Q.—And what is the difference between a seal caught in Behring Sea in July and August? A.—I cannot explain that, I cannot tell. In those years all our skins were taken by In- 60 (Theodore Lubbe—Re-direct—Re-cross.) dians. They were then pelted, stretched, and what we called the Behring' Sea skins, we call then Alaskan skins sometimes, these skins averaged in size very much larger, nearly 50 per cent, larger. Q.—They were handled differently? A.—Entirely. Of course the same crew might have been in the North Pacific. Of my own judgment I am certain I paid for them as Behring io Sea skins. Q.—Was there any difference in the price? A.—Yes, sir, in 1883, for instance, for 917 I paid $10 apiece on the ship in that year. The average cost was $5.83. Q.—Did you buy all the skins that were brought in that year except this one or two? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is that not going farther than you are justified to go upon reexamination? 20 Question withdrawn. Re-cross examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Why did you think I Insulted you when I spoke of you as an expert? A.—I have forgotten what remark you made. You made some remark that was not very pleasant, but I have forgotten what it was; I have not taxed my memory with it. Q.—You misunderstood me if you heard me say an3"thing else than that you. were an expert A.—I assure you I have forgotten the circumstance how it happened. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understood, Mr. Lubbe, that you used the words "so-called Behring Sea skins;" would you classify with the so-called Behring Sea skins any skins taken outsiele of the Sea, jusf south of the Islands? A.—South of the Aleutian Islands I would. ■Mr. Dickinson:—Whether caught on the coast or not? A. —What is the use of repeating it? I have just made the 40 statement. The Commissioners rose at five o'clock. 30 50 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America- Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 23, 1896. At 10.30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. Theodore Lubbe—The examination of this witness was continued from the previous sitting. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson continued: 6° Q.—Are you interested, Mr. Lubbe, in any of the cases before the Commission? A.—No, sir; none whatever. Q.—You have no interest in the "Favourite?" A.—No, sir. Q.—Had you at the time of her warning? A.—No, sir. Q.—No interest in her? A.—Well, what about the "Favourite?" Q.—Did you ever have any interest in the "Favourite?" A.—Certainly. 20 (Theodore Lubbe—Re-cross.) Q.—That is what I asked you? A.—No, you asked me if I had any interest in the cases now pending. Q.—When did your interest in the " Favourite" cease? A. —10th December, 1884. Q.—You have had no interest in her since? A.—No, Q.—Nor in the "Onward?" A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you ever have any interest in the "Onward?" A. Yes, I had. Q.—When did that interest cease? A.—I think in either 1883 or 1884, or it might have been in 1885 It was not later than 1885; it was in 1883, I think. I can hunt it up in this book if you wish me to. Q.—Could you tel) us when your interest in the "Favourite" ceased? A.—Yes, on 10th December, 1884. Q-—And you did not need to look at your books to find that? • A.—I looked it up this morning. Q-—And how did you come to look it up when you ceased to have an interest in the "Favourite?" A.—I looked up the history of the "Favourite" this morning, but not the "Onward." Q.—Why did you look that up? to be asked about the "Favourite.' Q.—And about your interest in '. terested in six schooners. Q.—You had no interest in her wards? A.—No, I had not. 30 40 SO 60 A.—Because I expected jr? A.—Yes, I was in- or in her voyages after- voyages ( A.—Nor in her voyages; no, I Q.—Nor in her had not. Q.—Will you be kind enough to show me the entry relating to the 900 skins in 1883? A.—It is here in this book. Q.—Was that entry made by you? A.—Made by me, sir. Q.—Will you be kind enough to read it off so that there may be no mistake about it? A.—It is as follows: 1883, October 13, Captain J. L. Carthcut to the Bank of British North America, $500; then there is a note beneath which says: 'Tart payment of purchase of 916 salted seals at $10;" then there is a little below: "Bought from Capt. J. L. Carthcut 916 salted seals at $10, $9,160;" and immediately below that: "Captain J. L. Carthcut to the Bank of British North America, $8,660; one cheque, $300, and another cheque for $8,360." Q.—That is the original entry? A.—Yes. Q.—Now will you give me the entry from 1882 from which you testified? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I want the original entry in your handwriting? A — I will give it te you. It is as follows: "1882, September 27th. Bought of Captain J. L. Carthcut 326 salted seals at $S, $2,608; paid cash $2,000, by two drafts each $1,000, cash $20, cash $40, cash $548; total,'$2,608." Q.—Is that the entire entry? A.—Yes. Q.—Now you have given us the whole of the original entries you made in both cases? A.—From the day book; I have lots of correspondence relating to the skins in this book if you wish it. Q.—Never mind that. You were an expert at that time in seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you be kind enough to tell us when before you had bought any salted seals? A.—Ye*, sir. I bought some in 1883. I shipped 6900 in 1883. Q.—Were thoy salted? A.—Yes. q.—Salted seals? A.—Yes, these were all salted. Q.-^Had you bought any seals prior to that time—you say that these were from Behring Sea—had you bought any salted seals from Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. IO 20 40 50 60 686 (Theodore Lubbe—Re-cross.) Q.—What ship load had you bought from Behring Sea prior to 1882? A.—I bought the "San Diego's" catch in 1881. Q.—Any other ship? A.—Not in 1881,1 do not think—Oh, yes! I bought the schooner "Buffandeau," but I cannot remember the date without hunting it up in my books—I cannot tell without looking. ej.—Who did you buy the 6000 odd seals from? A.— Many different people. Q.—What ship? A.—Many different ships. Q.—You did not buy them from Indians? A.—No, many different vessels. Q.—Did you separate in the account the salted from the dried skins? A.—Of course. Q.—You bought 6000 salted? A.—I bought that year 6983 salted. q.—Were any of them from Behring Sea? A.—I may be out on the schooner "Look Out;" I cannot place the "Look Out" just now. Q.—Did you buy any others from the "San Diego" in 1883? A.—No, sir, with the exception of a very few skins. Q.—Did vou buy any that were sent down by the "San Diego" in 1883? A.—She sent none down in 1883. Q.—Are you positive of that? A.—Yes. She sent none down; I bought the entire catch; I saw the captain's book, he made it 917 but it was only 916. Q.—Does anyone know where the captain's book is? A.— I cannot tell you, but I have seen the book. Q.—Do you know where it is? A.—No, I am very sorry I cannot oblige you. Q.—It is not a matter for regret at all. A.—Why do you not ask questions fairly? That book belongs to Captain Carthcut. Q.—You testified as to that book and I wanted to know where it was; 1 think our auditors, the Commissioners, will not accuse me of asking unfair questions; you referred to this book yourself, and I asked you where it is, and you say you do not know. That settles that. Now, where did the San Diego go to? A.—San Francisco. Q.—Did you represent any house in San Francisco in the purchase of seals? A.—No, sir. Q.—There are purchasers of seals in San Francisco? A.— Oh, yes; lots of them; quite a number. Q.—There is a large market for the purchase of seals? A.-^-Not at that time; none at all at that time. Q.—Until 1883? A.—Yes, Liebes & Co. owned several schooners. Q.—I want you to answer fully, because you might say that I was unfair if I did not let you. Tell us about the market in San Francisco? A.—There were a few schooners that sailed out of San Francisco, and Liebes & Co. owned several schooners. Q.—You were not a member of that company? A.—No, sir. Q.—And were not its agent? A.—No, sir. Q.—Now in your entries you do not mention "Behring Sea" seals, I see? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—Not in these entries to which you have referred to? A.—No. Q.—You have spoken of the prices in 1882 and 1883? A.— Yes. Q.—Were all the seals that were caught by the Indians on the coast dried? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did the Indians salt them? A.—They got some dried fur seals, but not many. . (Theodore Lubbe Q.—Did the Indians salt them Yes, certainly. Q.—The Indians did? A.—Yes, not on the schooners; I do not mean that—I mean the Indians on the coast. They have trading posts on the coast and the traders at these posts would buy from the Indians the skins which they took a short distance off the beach; the traders would then salt these l0 skins; I think in some instances the Indians themselves purchased salt and salted the skins themselves. Q.—Did not the Indians dry the skins sometimes? A.- Yes. Q.—You bought dried skins sometimes did A.—Yes. A.—De- 20 30 40 SO Go Q.—You distinguished them from cidedly. Q.—Which were worth most the dry or the salted? The salted skins. Q.—And a Behring Sea skin that was dried was worth how much less than a Behring Sea skin that was salted? A.— We never received any dried Behring Sea skins here. Q.—Well a coast skin that was dried was worth how much less than a coast skin that was salted? A.—The prices vary; the dried skins are not used for dressing and dyeing. Q.—Give us the different prices? A.—It is all very fine to say, but I cannot do it—the demand for salted and dried skins is irregular; the dried skins go to Russia to be worked out natural; they are not for dressing and dyeing, and the prices of the dried skin has no relation whatever to the price of the salted skin. Q.—That is a matter for argument by the counsel, and, if you please, we will do the argument ourselves. Can you tell me the price of dried skins in 1883? A.—I could by referring to the book. Q.—You bought a lot of them right along, and you must have some entry there in your book. Cannot you tell us without so much trouble? A.—No, I cannot, I might buy a few skins for a dollar and a half and on the same day I might pay $7 for them. It depends on the size. Q.—Well, take the general run of skins that you paid $10 for in 1883? A.—I did not pay $10 except for Behring Sea skins. Q.—For salted skins? A.—Yes, I shipped 6983 skins. Q.—Salted skins? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Can you find out how many dried skins you shipped? A.—Not' in this book; if my invoice book was here I could tell you. Q.—Now, Mr. Lubbe, suppose that you got a' lot of dried skins from the coast and a lot of salted skins—how much less would you pay for the dried than for the salted skins? A.—I told you before it is impossible to tell. The demand for both these is irregular. In one year the dried skins are worth nearly as much as the salted, and some years they are not worth half. Q.—Now I am going to find out from you before we finish this examination what dried skins were worth on the coast? A.—I did not buy skins on the coast. Q.—The dried skins that are brought from the coast? A.—I could find out if I had my invoice book here; I could tell you the exact figure for the entire shipment for one year, but not by this book. Q.—What I want to get at in the fairest way is, what is your best knowledge of the value of dried as distinct from salted skins in 1883? A.—I think I could get it in this book. Q.—Well, try then. A.—This is only up to 4th November, 1883, and I cannot give the total from' this book. Q.—I do notfRre for the total, A.—That is the only fair 688 (Theodore Lubbe -Re-cross.) io comparison because I have given you the total shipment of salted seals. Q.—I think I casually noticed in that book entries as to your purchases of otter skins and other skins for October? A.—Yes, there are sea otter skins entered here. Q.—Have you any entry there as to what you paid for dried seals during the same season? A.—Yes, I suppose so. Q.—Well, just look and see. A.—For instance, here are 23 dried seal, $74.50, on September 29th, 1893; it does not give anything about the size. Q.—Well, what was the price? A.—$74.50 for the lot, or equal to $3.25 a skin about. • Q.—Did you in 1883 pay more than $3.25 for dried skins? A.—If you will give me time I will hunt it up. Yes, certainly I did. Q.—You did pay more? A.—Yes, certainly. Here on July 3rd I see 3 dried seal at $5 each; on 25th July 13 dried 20 seal for $8.10. Q.—Each? A.—No, sir; for the lot. On the same page I also find 450 salted seal, $1977.50. Here is July 20th, 1883, 10 dried seal, $5, and here is July 16th 4 dried seal $10 for the lot; here is July 5th, 13 dried seal, $42.50 for the lot. Q.—Suppose you look a little further after the October entry and see if there are not others after that? A.—Not likely until next spring. Q.—Did you look? A.—Well, it is not worth while loeik- ing because the season is at an end in October; it would go 3° on until the following March. Q.—For the purchase of seals? A.—Yes, sometimes a stray one may arrive when the season is over. Q.—I'll ask you again so that we may understand it; Whether you are familiar, enough with the catch by the Indians on the coast and the Fair Weather Grounds to know whether the Indians themselves salted skins prior to 1884? A.—I do not think so. Q.—And whatever skins that came to you salted that were caught by the Indians on the coast were salted by traders on the coast? A.—Yes, on the whole. Q.—Which were the best skins. Those that were salted at the time of the actual catch, or those that were caught by Indians and salted afterwards by traders? A.—The best skins, of course, are those that were taken on board the vessel. Q.—And immediately salted? A.—Yes. Q.—And they command the highest price for that reason? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You say that you could tell from your examination of the skins the sex of the seal? A.—I.did not tell you that. Q.—I so understood you, and, if I did, I am mistaken? A. —Well you must misunderstood me. Q.—Did you not reply to Mr. Peters that you could tell the cow seals? A.—I could. q.—At that time? A.—Yes, I could; but I did not sort them according to ses. Q.—When seals were presented to you in 1883 you could tell whether the seals were cow seals or male seals? A.—In 75 oer cent, of the cases I could. Q.—And you could tell that in 1883? A.—I could. Q.—I thought I did not misunderstand you after all? A.— They are not bought and sold by sex, they are not rated that way. Q.—Is there anything in the entries you have made as to the size of the seals you bought off the "San Diego?" A.— No, but there is a correspondence with New York. The Behring Sea skins, in fact, all the skins taken in July and after, run a larger size. 40 50 60 11 Q.—You were buying seals from others in October, 1883? A.—No, sir. Q.—That is the only lot that you bought in 1883? A.—I think this was the second lot that arrived here from pelagic sealers; no skins arrived here from Behring Sea before, except the schooner Buffaneau. Q.—These were the only ones ever arrived from pelagic io sealers? A.—If you have patience for a moment I'll tell you. In 1881 the "San Diego" went to hunt walrus in the Behring Sea and she shot a few seals from the deck of the vessel, and sent boats out after seals—this was in 1881. I do not think that a schooner has put overboard any boats in 1881, I think that they were all shot from the deck of the vessel. She came here in the autumn of 1881 with 194, and Captain Carthcut was master of her. She had 5,000 lbs. of walrus ivory. In 1882 she went to Behring Sea, and she came here in feh§ autumn, and had between 326 and 330 seals; 20 I bought from her 326 and a few—three or four—were sold to an officer in the Customs House. 1 think she had then some walrus ivory—that was in 1882! In these years she did not call here in the spring, she was an American vessel and fitted in San Francisco, the Captain simply came here to sell his skins, thinking that the prices would be higher here than in California. In 1883 the vessel again arrived here in the autumn and landed skins; she had 917 according to the captain's book, but it only turned out to be 916, and no ivory. They had been after walrus, but they could not find one. 3° From information I found out from the captain I fitted out the "Mary Ellen" in 1883 to go in the summer of 1884 to the Behring Sea. Mr. Dickinson:—This probably ,is not material, but I want to be entirely fair with the witness, and let him answer. The Commissioner on the part of Great Britain:—A good deal depends on what he understood. Mr. Peters:—The fact of his buying the catch in 1881, 1882 4° and 1883 may be material. Mr. Dickinson: The Witness:— ing history. 5° -He is going on with the "Mary Ellen." am giving you a short sketch of the seal- Mr. Dickinson:—It is very interesting. The Witness:—Thank you. The fact that the "San Diego" caught 916 or 917 in 1883 caused the "Mary Ellen" to be fitted out in 1884. From information I got from the captain and the intelligent portion of his crew on board the "San Diego" in 1883—Capt. Carthcut was master, Alexander McLean was navigator. From information I got from the captain and the intelligent portion of his crew Mr. Dickinson:—Including Mr. McLean ? The Witness-—Yes, both the McLeans, certainly. Captain Carthcut he said he could get heaps of navigators in California and to take Daniel McLean for the "Mary Ellen," and 6o so I did. Q.—-That is Captain Alexander McLean? A.—No, Daniel McLean. Q.—He is a brother of Alexander McLean's? A.—Yes, an older brother. We then took Captain Alexander McLean into the "Favourite"— Q.—At this 'ime you were interested in the "Favourite?" A.—Yes, dr. 44 mJB 10 20 30 40 690 (Theo. Lubbe—Cross.) Q.—Is that all of the brief history of the sealing business? A.—I could make lots more if you wish. Q.—That is very interesting. Now on the matter of the market for Behring Sea seals. Did you at any time give the British or the American Commissioners this brief history? A.—I have given information to both sides—to the American side and to the British side. There were misstatements on both sides, and lots of them. The American Consul has been to me time and again—in fact all sorts of people from both sides—I have given them what information I had, and I did not give a cent who might hear mv information with regard to it. Q.—I refer to the statement that my learned friend, Mr. Peters, himself read in the American case, when we had a controversy as to whether anything should go in as to the American case. Mr. Peters read in this extract, Page 188. "In 1883 the "San Diego" entered Behring Sea and returned to Victoria with 2000 sldns. This gave an impetus to the trade and new vessels embarked in the enterprise." Did you give any statement through any misapprehension or otherwise, to the American Commisdoners, or to the American Consul, that the "San Diego" got 2,000 skins that year? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you give a statement that it was an impetus to the sealing business? A.—I do not remember; I have given the American consul—I do not remember his name—but he was the consul preceding General Roberts, I have frequently given him information when requested to. Q.—Now, Mr. Lubbe, you are particularly familiar with the hidory of the sealing business here, are you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And with the origin of it as you have just dated? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—And the origin, as you have always stated, and have stated here today, was the voyage of the "San Diego"? A.— Sealing was an old indudry here then. Q.—You commenced with the "San Diego" so far as pelagic sealing is concerned? A.—Because that was the first cargo received here from pelagic sealers. Q.—Do you always make that statement about the "San Diego"? A.—Yes, so far as the Victoria trade is concerned. I bought skins which were taken off the island by the schooner "Buffaneau;" she had raided the Otter Islands, but I cannot fix the year; I was not on board, but I heard that afterwards. Q.—Where did the "San Diego" go from here after she brought the seals? A.—San Francisco. season that she had been on So Q.—And in 1883 was the first an exclusively pelagic sealing trip? clusively sealing. Q.—Well, with walrus huntin in ffettine walrus that year, I think. O.—It was the first excludve cargo of sea pelagic sealing to this port? A.—Yes, sir. O.—And it was an experiment as it was the first one? —No, the experiment was made the two preceding years. A.—She was not ex- A.—She did not succeed that came of A. Q.—That was an ent erpnse for 60 some seals incidentally? A.—Yes. sir. walrus hunting, and to kill back. ime to Q.—I am talking about the first cargo that where the voyage had been devoted exclusive' sealing, and that was in 1883? A.—Yes. Q.—It was the first market for seals that year? Eight years previous, the schooner "Signa." Mr. Dicl,-;r«on:—Do not let us go into that now, because I am taking up your own history of pelagic sealing in Shring jeiagie A.- Q.—Was that voyage followed immediately by the fitting out of other sealers? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—So that it was, so to speak, the pioneer hunting voyage? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know the day when the "San Diego" left this port, you knew the day of her arrival? A.—I do not know when she left. Q.—Did she leave here very soon after discharging her cargo? A.—She may have remained ten days or two weeJ for all that I know. Q.—And sailed for San Francisco? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you know who fitted her out for this voyage? —Messrs. Hen dig & Co. Q.—What was their business? A.—Ship chandlers, coopers, or something like that. Q.—Did you go on the "San Diego" yourself? A.—Do you mean on board the vessel? Q.—Yes? A.—I elo not think I was. Captain Carthcut came to me. Q.—Do you know whether she carried any seals to San Francisco that A'ear? A.—She did not. Q.—How do you know? A.—Captain Carthcut told me, and he was a man. Q.—Did he tell you? A.—I saw his book and he told me so, and the McLeans told me. Captain Carthcut was a very gentlemanly man—if you were to converse with him for five minutes you would not doubt his word. He was a man, at that time, about 73 years old— Q.—Yes, we know that he is a very old man now, Why is your attention so particularly called to the fact that you got all the cargo of the "San Diego ?" A.—If I did not get the whole cargo I would assume that the cargo had been picked; if I buy skins, I am sure that I buy the entire cargo, 40 or I buy none. Q.—How did you make sure? A.—If I know the captain fairly well— Q.—The "San Diego" was fitted out from San Francisco on the first pionee? voyage for sealing? A.—She was not. She went for walrus hunting and sealing I tell you. Q.—Do you know Morris Moss of Victoria ? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Is he interested in the sealing business as you are in any way? A.—I do not know. Q.—He is a good citizen here, is he? A.—I do not know anything about him. Q.—I think he was agent for Levies & Co., of San Francisco? A.—Yes. Q.—You know Mr. Moss, we do not. Would it change your mind at all if Mr. Moss were to say that on that 1883 voyage the "San Diego" caught 2,200 skins? A.—I do not care what Moss says, Mr. Dickinson. Q.—You still stick to your statement that you did not go on the ship to look at the catch? A.—I do not think I did. Q.—You did not see the seals until they came to deliver them to would never do that if I h sufficient confidence in the captain, I would not wish to buy his skins at all. Q.—How long have you been engaged in the business? —Since 1875. Q.—Where did you come here from? A.—New York. Q.—What was your business there? A.—I' was buying furs and travelling in Montana and the Western States. I** tsJSt 10 20 30 40 692 (Theo. Lubbe—Cross.) Q.—For what concern? A.—Messrs. Martin, Bates, Junr, & Co. Q.—How long did you continue in their emplo3'? A.—Until now. Q.—You are si ill in their employment? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you have never been out of it? A.—It is a joint account; for indance, profit and loss is divided. Q.—Now, were Messrs. Martin, Bates & Co. interested with you in the "Favourite?" Was that a joint account? A. No. that is outside jntirety. Q.—Nor in any of the other ships? A.—No. Q.—You were interested in five or six? A.—Six. Q.—Would you mind telling me what thev were? A.— The "Favourite," "Mary Ellen," "Onward," '"Kate," "Black Diamond" and the 'Alfred Adams." Q.—Were you not interested in sealing down to 1886? A.— Yes, until the autumn of 1886. Q.—And you went out of the budness when? A.—I sold the remainder of the schooners in 1886. Q.—What was your interest in the "Favourite?" A.— Originally one-third, one-third or 16 shares, was sold to Alexander McLean. Q.—Did you have any recorded title of the one-third in the "Favourite?" A.—My son had, I am an American citizen, my son is a Canadian. Q.—It was your business however? A.—No, 1 charged him with the money I paid, and credited and debited him with the profit and loss as the case happened until the business was finally wound up. Q.—It was your business? A.—It was my son's business. Q.—You said to us a little while ago that it was yours? A.—Well, it was the same thing practically. Q.—Practically the same thing? A.—Yes. Q.—It was your capital? A.—Yes. Q.—Why did you mention that your son was a Canadian citizen in that connection? A.—I told you my son was born here; I could net hotd interests in these vessels as being an American citizen. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What do you mean by an "American citizen?" The Witness:—The United States. The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—America is rather indefinite, for it might include Mexico or Central America. You were a citizen of the United States of Amer- 50 60 The Witness:—Yes, sir. Cross-examination continued by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Are you now a citizen of the United States? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you invest any other capital from the United States for sealers here? A.—No, sir. Q.—I would like to know when you sold 3'our intered in the "Onward?" Not what it was for, or anything like that, but just when you sold it? A.—On July 7th, 1884, as appears by this ledger and also by the Day book. Q.—Who was with you in owning the "Favourite?" A.— Captain Spring and Captain Peter Francis. Q.—Where is he? A.—They are both dead. Mr. Dickinson:—That is all I have to ask you this morning, and I hope you will acquit me of being unfair. The Witness;—This morning you were very fair, 693 (Theo. Lubbe?—Re-direct.) Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—You were asked by Mr. Dickinson to look at the original entry with regard to the catch of 1882 and 1883, and in that original entry there is nothing about there being Behring Sea seals, or anything else. I want to know whether you have another entry that does show that? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—What is that? A.—On October 11th, 1883, I sent the io following telegram to New York: "Martin, Bates Jun. & Co., New York. "San Diego" arrived with 900 Alaskan seals. Q.—That telegram contains the statement that she had arrived with 900 Alaska or Behring Sea seals? A.—Yes. Q.—Is there any similar datement with regard to 1882? A. —Yes Q.—What does that tell? A.—It. is in my own cipher, and I will have to translate it. It is a telegram on 22nd September, 1882, to Martin, Bates Jun. & Co., New York, and it says: "Bought 326 Alaska seals at $8 privately." 20 Q.—You have stated that you got information from the (aptain of the schooner and also from the most intelligent of her crew, inclueling Daniel and Alexander McLean? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—You got information from these two parties, did you? A.—Yes. Q.—You stated that Daniel McLean had- some podtion on board that ship in 1882? • A.—Navigator. Q.—How do you know that? A.—Daniel McLean and Alexander McLean told me, and Captain Carthcut told me. 3° Q.—So that it was Daniel McLean was navigator from what Alexander McLean told you? A.—Yes, sir, certainly. Q.—And not Alexander McLean? A.—Alexander McLean was not navigator. Q.—You were asked questions as to Morris Moss, and as to whether, if he said there were 2,000 skins taken by the "San Diego" in 1883, you would change your mind and you said "No." What has become of Mr. Morris Moss? A.—I do not like to say anything about him, the man is dead now. Q.—Did he die here? A.—No. Q.—He lived here? A.—Yes. Q.—You were asked by Mr. Dickinson what made you look up the "Favourite" to-day? A.—Yes. Q.—You looked It up because you were asked to? A.— Yes. Mr. Dickinson:—Not by us. Mr. Peters:—By me. So Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters continued: Q.v—It has been stated here that the "Favourite" was sold some time about 1884, 1885 and 1886. Do you happen to know as a fact what she was sold for? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was it? Mr. Dickinson:—Well, we did not go into that, and the "Favourite" is not in the case. Go The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Have you not closed your case upon that point, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—No, I have not. My learned friend produced a witness named McLean who undertook to swear she wag sold for $3,000 — The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Not that sale. 40 IO 20 30 40 So 60 694 (Theo. Lubbe—Re-direct.) Mr. Peters:—! will take all these sales he mentioned and show that he was wrong. He gave the folowing evidence, as is to be found at page 409 of the printed record: "Q.—And about how old was she in 1886? A.—In 1886 I should think she would be less than—I couldn't say exactly, perhaps 18 or 20 years. I guess her register would show. "Q.—And do you know of her being sold? A.—Yes, sir. "Q.—Do you remember what she was sold at? A.—Yes, sir; she was sold at the rate of $3,000. "Q.—With her rigging? A.—Yes, sir. "Q.—Equipped for sea? A.—Jud as she came in from sea." I want to prove by this witness that she was sold at$4,500 and McLean must have known it. The Commisisoner on the part of the United States:—Did you give any evidence at all about the sale of the "Favourite" in your case? Mr. Peters:—No. The Commisdoner on the part of the United States:—We think you are entitled to show the date of the sale by the witness. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters continued: Q.—Be kind enough to tell me what time the "Favourite" was sold? A.—On November 14th, 1883. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Wait a moment, Mr. Peters, Mr. McLean was testifying to a sale in 1886. Mr. Peters:—I beg your Honour's pardon. There was no sale in 1886, and he cannot testify to it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That is his statement. Mr. Peters:—There were only two sales of the "Favourite." The Commisdoner on the part of the United States:—Well let us see about that. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Was she sold afterwards Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—She was owned by McLean himself until 1886. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Was she not seized Tn 1886? Mr. Peters;—She was warned in 1886, that is the year that the claim arises out of. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Was she sold afterwards? Mr. Peters:—1 do not know anything about sales afterwards. Mr. Dickinson:—Then you should not make a statement in regard to what you do not know. Mr. Peters:—And we have nothing whatever to do with it afterwards. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I see the record says in McLean's evidence that there was a sale, but it does not say when she was sold. It implies, however, that, she was sold in 1886. Mr. Peters:—There is another reason for which I shall ask this question. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is there 20 some doubt as to the date of this sale. My impression is that it rather looks as if it took place in 1886. Mr. Peters:—My learned friend has asked this witness if he was interested as an American citizen in certain ships, and amongst others the "Favourite." The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You are taking this evidence to contradict McLean? Mr. Peters:—I am taking this evidence in regard to new evidence about the "Favourite" brought out by Mr. Dickinson. I never mentioned the "Favourite." The Commisdoner on the part of the United States:—Did Mr. Dickinson bring out anything in the way of a sale from this witness? Mr. Peters:—He did not go into the question of sale, but he asked him whether he was interested in the "Favourite." The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Did he ask what she sold for? Mr. Peters:—1 propose now to ask this witness what she sold for, I submit that I have the right to ask that. Mr. Dickinson has brought this matter up for only one purpose, and that was to try and prove by this witness that he was interested in the catch of the "Favourite," the "Onward," and certain other ships, and I am going to ask him how he got rid of his haterest. I have a perfect right to ask that. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—There 50 is no objection to that, but I do object to your asking what she was sold for in 1883. Mr. Peters:—On what grounds does your Honour object? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—On the ground that you are opening up the case again, time is running away very fast. Mr. Peters:—And I do not think that we are altogether responsible for it running away very fad. We did not close our case on the question of value, and, it is open for us to show that he sold his interest in the "Favourite." Is there any reason why I shouldn't ask at what price—I have the right to ask that, even if it were only on the ground that I wanted to prove the bona fide getting rid of his interest. There is evidence put in here by the other side to show what McLean thought the price was. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You are not entitled to go into details until the other side con- 696 (Theo. Lubbe—Re-direct.) test the accuracy of the statement of your witness. I must say, on my own behalf, and speaking as one of the Commissioners—I may say that I believe I have some rights here with reference to the time that is taken up by counsel in disposing of this case. Mr. Peters:—Exactly, your Honour, we do not deny that. 10 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You have put in evidence covering a broader ground than I ever knew before, touching the value of a vessel 25 years old and 27 tons burden. For my part, I must protest against your opening that door again, and thus giving the other side the right to go into it to an}' extent they please. When you are attacked as to the good faith of Mr. Lubbe in selling his interest in 1883, then you have an undoubted right to rebut what the other side proves. The witness was not asked aboul the sale of his interest in the "Favourite," 20 and, so far as I am concerned (I am speaking on my own behalf), 1 think you are entitled to ask the witness when he sold his interest in the "Favourite," and then dop. If my learned brother desires anything more, of course he must have it. Mr. Peters:—With reference to the remark which your Honour made, I admit that the Commissioners have rights as to the length of time that should be occupied in this case. These rights, myself and my associate counsel, are fully pre- •30 pared to admit. We do not dispute them for a moment. However, that may be, we, on behalf of Great Britain, claim the right to present to the Commission the claims of the different claimants in the manner which we think is right, and we are aware that it is true that this may take some time. But we will see that it shall be done as quickly as possible, commensurate with our laying before this Commission every detail which we may consider important in the case. No doubt it may take some time. Your Honour will remember that it has taken ten years for the two governments to prepare a 40 means whereby these claims should be tried, and, if it has taken all that delay —(a delay with which the claimants could have nothing whatever to do) surely they have a right to present' their claims as their counsel think proper. It is not our fault if it takes time to present these claims. A matter of this kind cannot be prepared in a moment, and while on our part, we do not dispute the right of the Commissioners to shorten these proceedings, we, on behalf of the claimants, contend that we have a right to present this case to this Commission, with whatever evidence we may think 50 material. Your Honour, we propose to do that. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I have no doubt that you will be granted all possible rights in that direction by the Commissioners, and I think that you can say that up to the present they have granted it to you. Mr. Peters:—I have made no complaint The Commissioner on the part of the United States: There is no question on my part as to the entire good faith of coun- 60 sel, and there is no question about the industry of counsel. There is no question as to the difficulties which surround the counsel on both sides. Though counsel may proceed with the utmost good faith and utmost diligence they need at times to be checked by the Court. My remarks were made for the purpose of justifying my attitude in objecting to your re-opening the matter, when, perhaps, under other e-ircum- dances, I would not hesitate, so far as I am concerned, in permitting you to re-open. That is all there was to the mat- ter, and there was nothing whatever personal. On the other hand, I think that you must see—not only from what I have said, but from my personal conduct towards the counsel— that I have the highest regard for counsel on each side and have the highest respect for their endeavors to place this case before the Commissioners in an honorable, efficient and thorough manner. Nevertheless, there is the fact which applies to all counsel, that there are times when the best of counsel need to be checked by the Court, and to be reminded that in their zeal they are taking up the time of the Court upon matters which ought not to be re-opened. Mr. Peters:—I quite admit that. There are times when it behooves the court to interfere and check counsel, but I also feel that when counsel is checked in the course he is taking, if he is satisfied he is right, then he is right to pursue the course he has "adopted. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—No doubt about that. Mr. Peters:—And if I am allowed a few words of explanation, I think I can show the court that I am right in pursuing my present course. The ground I take is this: In the examination of Alexander McLean, who was a witness brought by the other side, and greatly relied upon by them, he makes certain statements of fact—among others—he says that the schooner "Favourite" was sold, not stating what year she was sold in, and when he said that, he was referring to the sale of several vessels which had then taken place at a certain time. Now then, he claimed to have certain knowledge of the sale of the "Favourite" by reason that he was one of the persons interested, and that he himself participated in the paying, or receiving of money, for the sale. I propose now to prove what the sales of the "Favourite" were, and I propose, further, to prove that his statement is incorrect. He says, that that vessel was sold, and valued at $3,000, and I propose to prove that she was not valued and sold at $3,000, and that she was valued and sold at a much higher price. I propose to show that McLean, even if you change the date a little, did not state fully and clearly the facts of the case when he made that bald statement that she was valued at $3,000. This surety must be apparent to the court. It is not only the case of the "Carolena" that this evidence is applicable to. it is applicable to all the cases. It has been remarked by the Commisdoner for the United States that we have been trying the vaule of a small schooner called the "Carolena." It might be within the knowledge of the Commissioners that all evidence of value in the case of the "Carolena" will, as a matter of course, be evidence in all the other cases. I admit that it would be ridiculous to take such a long time about such a small question as the value of the "Carolena," if that were the only one case in point. But when the evidence applies to the value of all the other ships, then I submit that we should go into it more fully than if it only applied to the one case. I remind your Lordships that this evidence goes into the other cases. As to the witness Alexander McLean, who is relied upon as a principal witness on behalf of the United States, Ave claim the right in every posdble and fair way to show, as to whether that witness is really to be relied upon or not. I am not saying that he is a witness not of truth or anything of that kind, but whether it is from a defective memory or not, we believe he is not a reliable witness/ and I submit that I have the right to show that, in every fair manner. We intend to prove it in this particular instance, because we shall show the two sales that took place of this vessel in which he himself was personally interested. IO 20 40 50 60 698 (Thco. Lubbe—Re-direct.) Mr. Warren:—Who was interested? Mr. Peters:—McLean was. Mr. Warren:—Just ask the witness that. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Let us see about that. I understood you to say, after the fird dis- cusion, that you did not offer this evidence to contradict McLean. Mr. Peters:—I said to the court that I had the right to get the same information on another ground. That ground I stated was: That Mr. Dickinson cross-examined this witness as to American ownership of the vessel. If I could get this evidence in for no other purpose I could get it in, because of that very cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Do I understand then that Mr. Warren, as speaking for the American counsel, does not object. Mr. Warren:—He has stated that McLean was interested in the boat, at the time of the sales, which this witness has spoken of. My understanding is that McLean was not inter- eded at the time. I did not ask my learned friend to put any question on the record. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand, Mr. Peters, that you offer this testimony to show, that this witness, in response to a question put by Mr. Dickinson, had parted with his interest in the vessel. Mr. Peters:—Certainly, and I have a right to show that. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I think there is an objection to your going into these details. Mr. Peters:—Suppose 1 merely ask, as to the value of the ships. Can I do that? The Commissioner on the part of the United States-—If Judge King thinks it ought to go in let it go in. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Could ne>t the cross-examination of McLean in his evidence at page 409 of the printed record be made more definite. Mr. Peters:—I was under the impression that it had been made more definite, but I cannot find it in the notes now. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I see that McLean is in court now. There can be no objection, I shoulel think, to calling him and asking him what was the time of the sale which his evidence relates to. He could be askeel what sale he referred to. There is nothing on record as to the date, but the impression on my mind is that it referred to the sale of the "Favourite" in 1886. However, as has been pointed out, it is not clear. Mr. Peters:—I do not remember his being asked that question. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I should think that that is the proper way to proceed. Mr. Dickinson:—Your Lordships' I have not said much on this matter, but I want to know now where we are getting to. We have been through the examination in chief of this witness, I have cross-examined him fully on the examination in chief. Now, if my learned friend, Mr. Peters, desires to call the witness in further rebuttal, that is a claim that he can 30 699 (Theo. Lubbe—Re-direct.) make, but it is certainly not competent to cross-examine, or rather re-examine him on a matter on which I did not touch in cross-examination. The Commisdoner on the part of Her Majesty:—My impression as to the second ground taken by Mr. Peters is that merely because Mr. Dickinson asked as to the transfer, it elid not necessarily open up all the particulars for cross-examina- 10 tion. Mr. Dickinson:—I did not certainly ask as to the transfer even. I asked him to show his intered in these cases under the condderation of the court. He might be influenced consciously or unconsciously by his interest in the case; I asked him if he were interested in any of these cases. He said "No." I then asked the witness as to his interest in the ''Favourite" and the "'Onward," and he said it ended in 1883 and 1884, and there T closed it, and I did not ask him about 20 any of the details of the transaction. The primary object of the interrogation was to ascertain whether he had an interest in the vessel at the time he was testifying to or at the time of the seizure. He disclosed that he had not. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I am inclined to agree with you about that. Mr. Dickinson:—Now in the "Favourite" case, if my learn ed friend wishes he may rebut, we have not gone into the question of the good faith of the transfers at all. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majedy:—I am inclined to agree with you there. If it were clear from Mr. McLean's evidence that he referred to a certain sale of the "Favourite," in 1886, I should not think that this would be rebuttal evidence at all. I think that Mr. McLean might be examined as to when the sale to which he referred took place. If Mr. Peters can show that Mr. McLean had knowledge of other sales he might go into that question. Mr. Peters:—As a matter of fact there was no sale in 1886. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—If Mr. Peters says that he can show that there was no sale in 1886, then we might adopt another course—that is, by proving the sale in 1884, and then proving by another witness that there was no other sale. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not see how there can be any ambiguity in Mr. McLean's testimony. We were on the question ol valuation: he was asked about the "Favourite" and he was asked how old she was in 1886 and then the question came "Do you remember what she was sold for?" and the answer was: "She sold for $3,000." Then the question was put, "With her rigging?" and the answer was "Yes, sir." Then the question was put, "Equipped for sea?" and the answer, "Jud as she came from the sea." The cross-examination discloses that he is asked about that and he says that was the value, or adjustification of the partnership made by the partners in 1886. There cannot be any doubt that his testinmhy bears on the year 1886. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I slfbpose that it would be rebuttal to that, if the other side couldf prove that there was no sale in 1886, and that the only , sale of which Mr. McLean could have knowledge was in 1885, Or some other year before that. It seems to me that my impression is that he was speaking of a sale that took place in 1886. Mr. Dickinson:—Undoubtedly, that is what tfte eridence was put in for. 40 50 60 !i^ Ksa 700 (Theo. Lubbe—Re-direct.) The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty: I suggested one way of meeting the difficulty. Another way would be, if Mr. Pesters could prove that there was no sale of the "Favourite" in 1886, then you open yourself to prove that there was a sale of which McLean must have knowledge in 1883, 1884 or 1885, and then you could show what the vessel was sold for. Either of these ways it seems to me would be io a fair way of approaching the matter. Mr. Peters:—Mr. Dickinson states that McLean refers to a sale in 1886. Mr. Dickinson:—There is no question that that is the valuation referred to between the parties, that was in 1886, and that is the point To which McLean's attention was directed in this testimony. Mr. Peters:—There was no sale in 1886. It was simply an 20 arrangement between two partners, and I will prove that. Mr. Dickinson:—That is already in testimony in McLean's evidence. Mr. Peters:—With regard to this particular evidence which was referred to just now—as a matter of fact I had a note made, to examine Mr. Lubbe on it in direct examination, but by some ommission I forgot to ask him about the sale of the "Favourite." Had it not been that Mr. Dickinson brought it up I would not have remembered it. This morning I remem- 3° bered the matter and got the books looked up to see what the sale actually was. I cannot see what objection there can be to this evidence—especially when it is evidence that is applicable to all the cases. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I want to understand your precise position: You wish to offer this evidence now on exactly the same line as in your opening case, as bearing on the value of vessels, including the "Carolena?" 40 50 60 Mr. Peters:—Your Honour is not under the impression, I hope, that we have stopped giving evidence as to the value of the vessels; we believe we gave sufficient evidence in the "Carolena" case applicable to that particular case. . We have been stopped giving evidence as to the value of vessels in dispute, and I,do not say that we were unfairly stopped. As a matter of fact, when that evidence comes up it will be most material evidence. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—This is1 one of the vessels in dispute. Why do not you reserve your evidence according to the understanding until the case is taken up. I do not in the slightest degree care how this thing is done, provided we can see the end of it some time or other. Mr. Peters:—1 thought a little while ago that your Honour did care a good deal how it was done. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you wish the evidence about all the vessels in dispute to go into his case? Mr. Peters:—If your Honour will allow me to make a statement: The "Favourite" was simply warned in 1886. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I have given you my views and counsel have all heard me. I shall withdraw the objection on my part, and throw the en- (Theo. Lubbe—Re-elirect—Re-cross.) tire responsibility hereafter on counsel, so far as these matters are concerned. Mr. Peters:—So far as any responsibility in that matter is concerned I, on my part, am perfectly willing to assume it. The Commissioner on the part of Great Britain:—Mr. Dickinson, if you come across that passage in the evidence io about the statement of partnership account, would you kindly give ihe the number of the page? .Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, sir, I will do that. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters continued: Q.—Take the first sale of the "Favourite" and tell us what tar it was in? A.—November 14th, 1883. -Give me the price? A.—There was 16 shares sold to JLJLU. Q.—For what amount? A.—To Captain Alexander McLean for $1,337.50. Q.—Was there a further sale in 1884? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Are 16 shares one-quarter interest? . Witness:—Yes, sir. By Mr. Peters: Q.—And the further sale was made when? A.—On Decem- 3° ber 10th, 18S4. (',. Spring & Co. bought the "Favourite" for $4,500. Q.—That is the total? A.—Yes, 64 shares. Q.—These entries are in your books? A.—In Spring & Co.'s books which I kept at the time. Q.—Those entries are in your books? A.—Those are Spring & Company's books. Q.—Would that be after she was in from the Sea? A.— She was naked. Q Q.—Now, you were asked about some other vessels you had 4 an interest in. You stated, did 3'ou not, that you had no interest in any of the claims? A.—No, sir, I have not. Q-—At all events, you have no interest in any of the claims? A.—No. Re-cross examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—I would like to have you tell us what you mean by naked? A.—I mean there was no outfit'on board of her. Q-—Do you mean sealing outfit? A.—I mean not fitted to go to sea. Q.—She had her rigging, I suppose? A,—Certainly. Q.—Sails? A.—Yes. Q.—Ropes ? A .—Certain ly. Q-—Anchors? A.—I suppose so, she was complete. Q-—Chains? A.—I suppose so, I didn't see her. Q.—Stern boat? A.—I don't know anything about that. Q-—You do not mean that she was not fitted with sails, rigging, anchors and chains? A.—She was complete. Q.—When you say "naked" you mean she was not fitted to 6o go on a sealing voyage? A.—That is what I mean. Q-—She was just as she came in from the sealing voyage? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—From the Sea ? A.—Yes. Q.—You do not know, Mr. Lubbe, about any sale or partnership valuation of the ship in 1886, do you? A. No I haven't the books; there was a dissolution of oartnershin in 1887. Q-—You were not interested yourself? A,—No. So 702 IO (E. Crow Baker—Direct.—Cross.) E. Crow Baker was recalled as a witness on the part of Great Britain. Direct examination by Mr. Peters. Q.—Will you be kind enough to look at your books and tell us whatr the catch of the "Triumph" in 1888 was? A.—I have in my hand a book given me by Captain Daniel McLean, the master of the vessel at that time, and which I conscientiously believe to be in his handwriting, and the figures are: 681 in June; 1233 in July; 569 in August; total, 2483. Q.—Can you give me the number of boats that she had? A.—I am not positive, but I think there were eleven canoes and two other boats. Q.—Then she used Indians? A.—She had 22 or 23 Indians; I could give you exactly by hunting up my books. . 22 or 23 Indians, dory, I think, and Q.—That is about it, is it? A.—She and two men in ship's boats; one was 20 the other a ship's stern boat. Q.—Do you know where Captain Daniel McLean is now? A.—I could only give it by hearsay information imparted by his brother the other day, to the effect that he was somewhere in South America. Q.—Does that book you have there state the dates on which they are caught? A.—Yes. 30 40 (By consent of counsel the reporter copied into the record the dates of catch, number caught, and the latitude and longitude of the July and August catch, as follows:) May 15th, 21; 16th, 27; 19th, 7; 26th, 30; 27th, 33; June 2nd, 21; June 3rd, 43; 4th, 74; 5th, 52; 6th, 57; 10th, 134; 13th, 69; 15th, 14; total, 681. July 7, 56, lat. 55:44 N., long., 168:10 W.; 8th, 39, lat. 55:44; 10th, 23, lat. 55:44; 14th, 38, lat. 54:40, long. 168:30 W.; 15th, 81, lat. 54:36, long. 168:40; 18th, 288, lat. 55:14, long. 170 W.; 19th, 185, lat. 55:13, long. 170:30 W.; 20th, 64, lat. 55:25, 169 W.; 27th, 126, 54:58, long. 169:42 5th, 41, lat. 55:33, 60 long. 170:18 W.; 26th, 259, lat. 55:20, long, lat. 55:10, long. 169:30 W.; 28th, 74, lat. W.; total for that month, 1233. August long. 169 W.; 8th, 107, lat. 55:24, long. 170:58 W.; 12th, 28, lat. 55— long. 170:50 W.; 13th, 98, lat. 55, long. 170:50; 14th, 290. lat. 55:38, long. 171:20; 20th, 5, lat. 53," long. 171:20; total, 569. Of the 2483, 681 was the coast catch. Q.—The above constitutes the daily latitude and longitude? A.—No, I think there are two days on which the longitude is not given, otherwise every day. Q.—Those days are what? A.—From the 7th of July to 5° the 20th of August, inclusive. And include only the dates upon which catches were made. The two days when the longitude is not given are the 8th and 10th of July. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson. Q.—This book is the book from which you testified, and the only one? A.—It is. (Book marked No. 14 for identification.) Q.—I believe 3'ou can give the number of canoes accurately? A.—At this moment, no; but I am almost certain that there were eleven canoes and two ordinary ship's boats. Q.—And what was the tonnage of the "Triumph?" A.— Gross tonnage 106; nd, 97 and a fraction. Q.—Do you know the number of men she carried at that time? A.—Yes. There was the master and four men, and there was a special Indian who was not a hunter. Q.—That is six? A.—Yes. 7os (E. Crow Baker—Cross. Q~*S ?! car,riedAa stern boat, I suppose? A -Yes gcQt-And a dory? A.-I think a dory PP° A" YaL S. Bucknam—Direct.) A.—1 brought from Nova 10 Samuel W. Bucknam was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain in rebuttal, and was duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Peters. Q.—Where do you live? A.—Victoria. Q.—Have you been engaged in sealing? A.—I have. Q.—Were you in the schooner "Ariel" at one time? A.— Yes. Q.—What year? A.—1889. 20 Q.—In what capacity? A.—Master. Q.—How many boats did the "Ariel" carry in 1889, or canoes? A.—Six boats. Mr. Lansing;—The catch of the "Ariel" is involved, is it not? Mr. Peters:—I cannot help that. It affects every case. I am only giving the fact of the catch. Mr. Dickinson:—It is only a matter of order, and the 30 only point I take is that we are not prepared for our cross- examination. The Commissoner on the part of the Unted States:—Is * this the year 1-889, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—It is. Mr. Dickinson:—This case is involved and this is a part of their measure of damages. By Mr. Peters: 40 •> Q.—You were in the "Ariel?" A.—Yes. Q.—When did you go into the sea? A.—I don't know the date. It was about the 10th of July. Q.—And how long did you stay in the sea ? A.—Came out • about the 30th of July, I think. Q.—I want to know the date you went out; how long did you fish there? A.—I don't know the date. The ship's books are lost and the log book also. Q.—You were there all of July, at all events? A.—About SO all of July. Q.—How many seals did you catch? • The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I thought the underdanding was that you would not go into these cases that are in controversy? Mr. Peters:—The quedion of catch, no matter whether in controversy or not, is material in regard to other ships, especially for the year 1889. The year 1889 dands differently from any other 3'ear, because the seizures took place at very 60 different periods from the early part of July. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I.do not know that we have any control over counsel in the matter. I simply said I thought that was the understanding. Mr. Dickinson:—We have had a conference in regard to that, and my friend Mr. Peters says he will produce the witness later for cross-examination. 704 (S. W. Bucknam—Direct—Cross.) Mr. Peters:—This evidence will not be repeated. It will only be given once. Direct examination continued by Mr. Peters: Q.—Now then, do you remember your catch, Captain Bucknam? A.—I think it was 844 in Behring Sea. Q.—What tonnage was the "Ariel?" A.—Ninety-one tons. 10 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—The boats; he said six, I think? Q.—How many canoes did you say you had? A.—She had a white crew in 1889; dx boats. Q.—And a stern boat? A.—No stern boat. Q.—Six hunting boats? A.—Six hunting boats. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q-—You did not state that you went out during the month of July, did you? A,—I said I was ordered out on the 30th of July. (Question read by reporter.) A.—No. Q.—You do' not claim that you went out when you were warned out, do you? A.—No. Q.—Now you lost a boat right after you were warned out, did you not? A.—Yes. Q.—How long did you look for that boat? A.—I think about a week or ten days, o Q-—It was longer than ten days, was it not? A.—I do not remember. Q.—You toon seals all the time you were looking for it, did you not? A.—Some of the time. Q.—You took 444 while you were looking for it, did you not? A.—About that, yes. Q.—Now just remember, Captain Bucknam, the best you can, how many days you were in the sea after you were warned? You- said ten. Now it was more than ten, was it not? A.—I couldn't say how many days. It might have 40 been a couple of weeks or thereabouts. Q.—Now you have got up to fourteen days, do you think it was more than fourteen? A.—Well, I have lost the record; I do not know how long it was. Q.—That is the reason I want, your best recollection, be cause you have lost your record. You stated it to be ten or fourteen days; now was it not more than fourteen? A.— It may have been. I got about 400 seals after I was ordered out. Q.—You know what day you went out of Behring Sea, do 53 you not? A.—No, I do not. Q_Was it not the 21st of August? A.—I don't know that. Q.—Did you not make an affidavit once that you went out of Behring Sea on the 21st of August? A.—Yes, in making up the claim I suppose I would. Q.—Do you suppose you would put in. the 21st of August as the date unless that was right? A.—I tried to have that right. q.—What is jour recollection about it now then? Was it the 21st of August when you went out of the sea or earlier? A.—I made that statement six or seven years ago. I have forgotten. Q.—I am asking about your recollection when you went out of the sea? A.—I haven't the slightest recollection about it. Q.—How many skins did you have when you were warned? A.—Somewhere about 440, I think. Q.—You had 400, had you not? A.—400. Q.—And after you were warned out you took 444 ? A.—I think that is the number. Q.—So that you took more skins after you were warned than you did before; that is correct, is it not? A.—I took more. Q.—Did you find that boat you were looking all those days io for? A.—No, I didn't find it. Q.—Did you ever hear of the boat afterwards? A.—I did. Q.—Where did the boat land? A.—Aboard of an Indian schooner going to Ne;ah Bay. Q.—At what time did she get aboard the schooner? A.— The next day after she was lost from us. Q,—Now, you do not claim to have looked for that boat 21 days, do you? V.—We cruised about making inquiries Q.—The fact is, you went sealing for twenty-one days? A.—Not on the sealing ground proper. 20 Q-—You seal -o twenty-one days? A.—I had the boats out afterwards. Q.—And you got more seals after you were warned than before? (Witness nods affirmatively.) Q.—I will ask you to look at an affidavit found on pages 200 and 201 of volume 4 of the American Reprint, and I ask you if that is a copy of an affidavit you made here in Victoria on the 29th day of November, 1889? A.—(Examining)—Yes. that is a copy, I believe. Q.—This affidavit is made on the 29th day of November, 30 1889, and I suppose your recollection of when you left the sea would be fresher at that time than it is now? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you state in that affidavit that on the 21st day of August the "Ariel" sailed out of Behring Sea homewarel bound with 844 sealskins on board ? A.—(Examining)— ■ Yes. Q.—So that the "Ariel" was in Behring Sea until the 21st day of Augud, was she, that year? A.—Yes. Q.—You remember that now, having thus refreshed your recollection ? . V.—Yes. 40 Q.—And that is correct? A.—It is. Q.—That was the first year the "Ariel" was out, was it not ? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you never had any experience in Behring Sea before that year? A.—No, sir. Q.—That was the lird time you were ever in the sea? A. —Yes. Q.—And had you ever been sealing anywhere else before that year? A.—No. Q.—That was your first experience in sealing anywhere? A.—It was. Q.—And you took 844 skins with six boats? A.—Yes. Q.—And beddes that you took S41 on the coast, did you not? A.—1595 was the total I got for the season, I believe. Q.—You referred to a book when you gave that answer, where did you get those figures from? A.—I have a kind of pass-book I had 1 hoard of the vessel at one time for that year; accounts I have kept with the hunters. Q.—All your books were not lod then for that year? A. 60 —No; these are Iitth band-books I have Q.—But they contain an account of your catch. T suppose, in the sea, do they not? A.—They are what the hunters caught from day to day. Q.—And I suppose the last day the hunters caught any seals would appear in that book? A.—I guess it would. Q.—And when did you last look at that book? A.—Yesterday. 7c6 (S. W. Bucknam—Cross.) Q.—And when you took the stand here to-day, Mr. Bucknam, did you not know that you went out of the sea on the 21st day of August because you had refreshed your recollection from that book? A.—I did not. It never occurred to me to think of it. Q.—The "Ariel" was in Behring Sea in 1890, was she not? A.—Yes. io Q*—Had twelve canoes that year, had she not? A.—I guess she would have that many. I do not know. Q.—I do not want any information about it unless you have some memory as to it. A.—I have no memory. Q.—Have you any books from which you could refresh your recollection about the year 1890, or were they all lost? A.—No, I have a pass-book if you can make anything from it, that the captain of the schooner left with me. Q.—Were you in the sea yourself in 1890? A.—No. Q.—You do not know what time the "Ariel" left the sea 20 in 1890? A.—No. Q.—Will you bring us the books referred to? A.—I will. The Commissioners took recess until 2.30. 3° At 2:30 p.m. the Commissioners resumed their seats. Cross-examination of Captain Bucknam resumed by Mr. Warren: Q.—Captain Bucknam, you have produced here the book to which you refer as containing the account with the various hunters aboard the "Ariel" in the year 1889, have you? A.— Yes. Q.—And it is the book which I have in my hand? A.— Yes. 4 Q.—And by a reference to that book you will be able to state now that the "Ariel" left the sea on the 21st of August that year? A.—I don't know whether I can, I will have to look and see (examining). It looks like August 18th. Q.—You stated in the affidavit which you identified this morning as beiug a copy of the original affidavit that you did leave on the 21st of August, and that affidavit was made in the fall of 1889? A.—That would be the last sealing day. co Q.—So you state now that you did leave on the 21st of August? A.—That was the declaration I made, and I believe it to be right. Q.—Do you wish to change in any way the number of seals that you took in the year 1889, or by reference to' this book do you still believe the number fo be 844? A.—f believe the number to be right. Q.—And those seals were all taken in Behring Sea, were they? A.—Yes, excepting one or two from Sand Point up. Q.—Practically all of them were taken in the Sea? A.—- 6o Yes- Q.—The "Ariel" was in Behring Sea in 1890? A.—Yes. Q.—And will you tell the Commissioners how many skins the "Ariel" took in the year 1890, and what her equipment was? A.—Her catch in Behring Sea would be 1,130 to the best of my knowledge. Q.—In the year 1890? A.—In the year 1890. Q.—How many canoes or boats did 3'ou have in the year 1890? A—I should sav 14, Q.—Fourteen which? A.—Canoes. Q.—And two Indians for each canoe, that would be 28, and what crew beside the Indians did you carry? A.—Thai: year she had captain, mate, navigator, cook and boy in addition. Q.—No sea men ? A.—Perhaps two sea men. Q.—That makes seven in addition to the 28 Indians, mailing 35 men aboard the boat? A.—That would be somewheres near right. Q.—You were not warned out in the year 1S90, were you? A.—No, I was not in a vessel in 1890. Q.—The vessel was not warned ouf? A.—The vessel was not warned ouf. Q.—You were a part owner of the "Ariel" in the year 1889? A.—I was part owner. Q.—Owned one-third? A.—Gne-fourth. Q.—Who owned the remaining shares in the "Ariel"? A. —John M .Taylor, of St. John, New Brunswick, and Boiler M. Lawrence. Q.—They owned three-fourths between them? A.—Yes. Q.—I want to ask you one question about the search for that boat. You do not mean to have us understand, Captain, that you looked for the boat constantly from the 30th July, the dav on which you claim to have been warned, until the 21st of August? A.—Not at all. Q.—The fact is you looked for the boat one or two days after the day that you were warned, and then you went sealing? A.—We looked until we discovered where she was. Q.—You told me this morning that she was taken aboard another vessel which belonged to some Indians from Neah Bay, the day after she was lost? A.—Yes. Q.—So that would make the time spent searching for the boat one or two days? A.—No, not at all. Q.—You did not ascertain that within one or two days? A.—We didn't ascertain that for perhaps ten days afterward. We never saw that vessel afterwards; from a different source. Q.—But before you ascertained that fact you had taken seals? A.—I expect we had. Q.—So that 3'ou did not spend the entire ten days looking for the boat, you were sealing in the interim? A.—While we were looking for the boat we ran up to every schooner we saw. Q.—Were you sealing during these ten days at all? A.— I presume we were sealing every good day, I don't know. Q.—And you were sealing every good .day up to the time you left the Sea, were you not, Captain? A.—Yes. Q.—There was nothing taken off the "Ariel" by the officers of the cutter that warned you? A.—No. Q.—Nothing removed from your ship? A.—No, sir. Q.—You had white hunters that year? A.—White hunters. Q.—And the; dians. Q.—But they all had guns? A.—All had guns. Q.—You had six boats? A.—We had six boats, one canoe, and in looking over the book I believe we had a stem boat. Q.—So that what you said this morning about having six boats and one being lost, is not exactly correct. The fact is you had six boats and a canoe and the canoe was lost? A.— No, the boat was lost. I was speaking from memory then, but I see on looking at the book we must have had a stern boat and a canoe. Q.—So that you had seven boats including this stern boat and canoe? A.—Yes 10 7o8 (S. W. Bucknam—Cross.) Q —And which one of the boats was lost, the stern boat or one of the hunting boats? A.—One of the hunting boats. Q.—Did you ever make a report to the custom house here in Victoria that you took 1,400 skins in Behring Sea in the year 1889? A.—No. Q.—Did the "Ariel" ever have 1,400 skins when she came into port in 1889? A.—No. Q.—She had just the 844, or approximately that number? A.—About that. Q.—Did you make a report to the custom house authorities in that year of your catch? A.—I think not, we were not asked to, it wasn't compulsory as it is now. Q.—The tonnage of the "Ariel" was 90 and you had six boats ? A.—Yes. Q.—And you had 22 men? A.—In 1889? Q.—Yes. A.—Twenty-two men Q.—But you did not take 1,400 skins in Behring Sea? A. —No. 2 Q.—Have you any record of your Behring Sea catch in 1889 such as you showed me for the year 1890 ?A.—No, I haven't. Q.—Have you the log of the "Ariel" for the year 1889? A. —No, I have a kind of rough diary. Q.—Where is that? Mr. Peters:—I do not want to interrupt my learned friend. We called this witness simply for the purpose of proving the catch generally for the year 1889. We did not propose to go into the facts in the case of the "Ariel." I would suggest 3° that as we intend to bring this witness back again, as to the actual facts in the case, it might be advisable not to go too fully into those facts now, that is to say whether they went out and were warned and all that business. We will have the witness for the purpose of going into that fully. Mr. Warren:—It was stated to the court this morning that this testimony would not be gone over again. 40 Mr. Peters:—Not on the mere fact of the catch; however, I do not object at all. Cross-examination continued by Mr. Warren: Q.—You produce this book here and say that it is a memorandum log for the year 1889 of the schooner "Ariel"? A.—T do. Q.—Referring to this memorandum which you have produced, will you state whether it is in your handwriting? A. —My handwriting. Q.—Is it all in your handwriting? A.—All in my hand- 50 writing. Mr. Warren:—We understand from Mr. Bodwell that this will he'reafter be put in evidence. Mr. Bodwell:—I will produce it at any time it is asked for. Cross-examination continued by Mr. Warren: Q.—Take Tuesday, July 30, 1889, in that memorandum log. Will 3011 state whether or not it is a fact that your boats gQ were out within three hours after you were warned and you were sealing that day? A.—Yes. Q.—That is a fact? A.—Yes. Q.—You were warned at six o'clock in the morning and had your boats out at nine sealing? A.—Yes. Q.—And you took 120 skins that day? A.—I did. Q.—Where did the boat "Mary Delio" sail from? A.—San Francisco. Q.—Who owned the "Mary Delio"? A-—I don't know. II Q.—You don't remember the name of the captain? A-—No. Q.—Do you remember the name of the mate? A.—No. Q.—Or anybody aboard her? A.—No. y.—The "Mary Delio" came out of the Pass on the same day with you, did she not? A.—I believe she did. Q.—And you came out of the Four Mountain Pass? A.— Yes. Q.—Now, in addition to refreshing your recollection from the affidavit by referring to this log, are you able to state what date you did come out of the Pass as shown by that log? A.—(Referring to log.) I dou't remember the date, but that statement is correct, the 21st of August. Q.—The schooner "Lottie was the schooner that picked up your boat, was it not? A.—Yes, Inelian schooner "Lottie." Q.—What other boats did you see .coming out of Behring Sea about the time that you came out, besides the "Mary Delio"? A.—I don't remember of seeing any. Q.—Did 3'ou see the schooner "Favorite" that yeav'i I don't remember of seeing her. Q.—The "Mary Delio was not warned, was she? don't remember whether she was or not. Q.—You did not hear anything about: her being warned? A.—We were in company with her and he told us of other vessels being warned. Q.—He did not tell you that he was warned? A.—I forget whether he did or not. Q.—Do you know that the "Mary Delio" was leaving the Sea that year because she was through hunting? A.—I i»new she was leaving the Sea because she dared not go on the sealing ground for fear of seizure. Q-—How do you know that? A.—Because I was aboard of her and they were aboard of us. Q-.—Why is it, then, that you cannot remember whether she was warned or not? A.—I remember by the position he was keeping, the same as I was. Q.—You guessed that he was afraid of going onto the sealing ground? A.—I knew that, because I was in the same position. Q.—Did he tell you he was? A.—Yes. Q.—Did he tell you he had been warned? A.—I don't know whether he did or not. Q.—You cannot remember that? A.—No, I believe he had spoken other vessels that had been warned and he was afraid of being seized. Mr. Peters:—I am going to re-examine this witness as to the special case of the "Ariel," but I wish to re-examine him shortly as to some facts brought out about the year 1890. I reserve my right to call this witness anew in the case of the "Ariel" as to the special facts relating to that case. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—You gave the catch, I think, that you made in the year 1S90? The Commisisoner on the part of Her Majesty:—He was not aboard of her, he got his information as to 1890 from documents. Q.—But you gave the statement as to the catch in 1890? A.—Yes. 7io (S. W. Bucknam—Re-direct. L. Olsen—Direct.) Q.—Do you i> now when the ship entered the Sea in 1890? A.—No. Q.—Nor when she came out? A.—No. Q.—Do you know as to her outfit in that year? A.—Yes, I gave her her outfit. io 20 30 40 SO 60 Louis Olsen was called as a witness in rebuttal on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Sir C. H. Tupper:—I take this witness only on the catch of 1889. Q.—What vessel were you in in 1889? A.—The "W. P. Sayward." Q.—How many boats? A.—13 canoes and one boat. Q-—How many schooners? A.—26 Indians, 13 canoes, two Indians in a canoe. Q.—What was your position? A.—Master. Q.—Who was the mate? A.—Man by the name of Holmes. Q.—Did you hunt? A.—No, sir, the mate went out in the stern boat. Q.—What time did you enter the Sea? A.—Entered the Sea about the 7th of July. Q.—What time did you come out? A.—On the 18th of August I started frqm the sealing grounds. Q.—Why did you leave then? A.—Well, I spoke the "Lily L" that evening after dusk and the captain and his brother, he was out in his boat, and he boarded me and reported the "Minnie" was seized, Captain Jacobson; also that they had taken guns away from some vessels. Q.—And you left that night? A.—I started for the Pass that-night. Q.—Where were you then? A.—I was in about 169 west longitude and about 54.56 north latitude, about that position as near as I can recollect. Q.—Did you say when you went in the Sea? A.—On the 7th of July, I think. Q.—About what was your catch? A.—Well, for the whole season my catch was 2816 skins, that is coast and Behring Sea. Q.—About what was the Behring Sea catch? A.—1812 was my Behring Sea catch. Q.—What sort of weather had you when you left?' A.— On the 18th of August I got 84 skins, which was as near as I can remember. Q.—Good sealing weather? A.—Good sealing weather. Q.—Do you remember the catch in 1888? A.—'88 I wasn't there; I was there in '90. Q.—What ship was you on in 1890? A.—On the schooner "Juanita." q.—Can you give us the catch of the vessel in 1890? A.— Yes. sir. I think I can: I remember it well, because I was on the lay that year and that is the way it is impressed upon my mind. 'q.—What was it? A.—1381 including the whole catch. Q._What was it in the Sea? A.—1141. Q.—How many boats had you or canoes? A.—Nine canoes. Q.—How many hunters? A.—Eighteen. Q.—Where* were you sealing? A.—In Behring Sea. Q.—What part? west and 55 north. -Well, I was hunting around in 170 7ii io 20 (L. Olsen—Direct—Cross.) Q.—When did 3'ou go into the Sea? A.:—My first sealing day was the 12th of July; I don't remember the day that I entered the Pass; I can't remember. Q.—When did 3'ou leave the Sea? A.—The second of September. Q.—What was your podtion on the ship? A.—Master. Q— What sort of weather had you in 1890? A.—Well, July was very fair; well, in the latter end of it. In the latter end of August, in fact the whole of August was pretty fair, but the seals were kind of scarce at the time. Q.—You cannot give us the lowering days? A.—I can't give the daily catch; no, sir. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Did you keep any log books? A.—Kept them at the time. Q.—Have you got them now? A.—No, sir. Q.—Do you know where they are? A.—I don't know. Q.—When did you see them last? A.—When I left the ship. I generally leave my log books on board. Q.—Did you keep a sealing book? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Of your own? -A.—Well, I generally left it with the owners when I came home. Q.—Have you got one for these years? A.—No, sir, I haven't. 40 So 60 A.—Mr. Lundberg was the in 1889, and Mr. Morris Moss crew. A.—Hall & Goepel was the logs? A.—No, sir, I left them Q.—Who were the owners? owner of the "W. P. Sayward' bought the skins and paid the Q.—And of the "Juafiita"? owner. Q.—And you gave them the on board the vessel. Q.—You never kept a sealing log for your own information from year to year? A.—No; my private book was generally left to pay off the crew by. Q.—Who did you say owned the "Sayward" in 1889? A.— Well, a party by the name of Lundberg, Beek & Company. Mr. Lunaberg is in court at the present time. Q.—And Mr. Morris Moss paid off the crew? A.—He bought the skins which I brought from Behring Sea and he was a kind of receiver for the vessel on my return, and he paid off the Indian hunters, and the book was left with him. Q.—Was he interested in the voyage? A.—Not as I know of, sir. turn. Q.—Do you know for whom Mr not. Q.—He was a purchaser of seal skins and. other skins here in this port? A.—He was purchaser in 1888 and 1889 of my seal skins which I brought in. Q.—Was that his business, the purchasing of seal skins and other furs? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you, in 1889, trans-ship 3'our skins before entering the Sea? A.—I did. Q.—Where? A.—About 70 miles outside of Sand Point— Shumigan Islands. Q.—To what boat did you transfer them? A.—The schooner "Wanderer." Q.—In 1890 did j'ou transfer them? A.—I transferred them in Northeast harbor to the "Mischief." Q.—Did you do any sealing after transferring your skins before entering the Sea ? A.—No, sir, we had a gale of wind after leaving there which took us into Behring Sea. Q.—In 1889, did you do any sealing before 3'ou entered the Sea? A.—Not after leaving Sand Point, no, sir. Only that he purchased the skins on my re- Moss was agent? A.—I do IO mow nis first 20 712 |L. Olsen—Cross—Re-direct.) Q.—Did you make a report on returning here to the Custom house of the skins? A.—Not that I remember, it wasn't customary for us to do so then. Q.—Did you do it? A.—No, sir, I don't think I did, I am not sure. Q.—Now, Captain, do you know that the catch in Behring Sea was 1,643 in 1889? A.—To my memory it was 1,812. Q.—How do you refresh your memory? A.—By the man that kept tally on my return. Q__Who was that? A.—Mr. Logan. Q.—What is his first name? A.—I don't name. Q— Did he work for Mr. Moss? A.—He was hired at that, special time for to take the tally of the skins. Q.—Has he got that tally now? A.—I think he must have, I am not sure whether he has at present. Q.—Did Mr. Logan tell you that that was the catch of the "W. P. Sayward" in 1889 within the last few days? A - Well, I spoke to him concerning it, but at that time he didn't have his book. He has hunted it up since and I was conversing with him about it. I think I was a few skins out in the count at the time and he corrected it. Of course he had it there from the time he took the tally of the skins and there was 1,812. Q.—If you had not refreshed your recollection in that way, would you have been able to say how large the catch was of the "W. P. Sayward" in 1889? A.—For the full season, I 30 could, but not particularly for Behring Sea alone. Q.—Now, if you made a return to the custom house of the "W. P. Sayward" in 1889, of 1,643 skins for Behring Sea. would that be correct? A.—Not that I can remember. Q.—Would it be correct if you did make such a statement? A.—I don't think so, not according to the tally. Q.—The "Juanita," how ebd 3rou refresh 3'our ecollection as to her in 1890? A.—I had spoken it over so often with my friends, that is the reason my mind is impressed with it with my full catch of the year. 40 Q.—You can remember the full catch ,very well* A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How do you fix the Behring Sea catch? A.—Because I remember eacb"time I landed my skins. Q.—Have you talked with anybody about that to refresh your recollection? A.—Yes, in the first of the Commission sitting here I went to Mr. Hall and he produced "the book for that year. Q.—Could you testify to the number without refreshing your recollection from Mr. Hall's book? A.—I would have a 50 memory of the two coast catches. Q.—Wouldn't you have a memory of the Behring Sea catch? A.—That would come in the full catch of the vessel: if I knew the coast catch I would know the Behring Sea catch by the full amount. Q.—What was the coast catch of the "Juanita?" A.—It is 97 for the spring, 337 for the coast. Q.—Now, if you made a return in 1890 at the custom house that you took 770 skins in Behring Sea, was that correct or 60 incorrect? A.~It is incorrect, because I don't think I made any report in the custom house; 777 I think is my catch in the Sea. Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Sir C. H, Tupper:—Perhaps it would not be irregular to ask my learned friends if they seriously question the catch in the "Sayward." We can produce Mr, Logan, but it seems un- Q.—Before you spoke to Mr. Logan, you say there was a discussion between you as to the exact amount. How much did you differ? A.—About 100 skins. Q.—There was a dispute of 100 between you? A.—One thousand seven hundred and something, I thought I had, and he said 1,800 according to his books. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Now, witness, I think you said you left the Sea on the 2nd of September, 1S90? A.—Yes, sir, I did. Q.—How many days before that was your last lowering day? A.—I lowered on the second of September. Q.—And came out on the 2nd? A.—I started for the Pass; I didn't say what day I came through the Pass. I came out of the Pass in company with the "Beatrice." Direct examination resumed by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—Therev seems to be some misunderstanding about this "Juanita" count. What is it you say was the total catch? A. —1,181. Q.—What is the Behring Sea catch out of that? A.—I think it was 777. Samuel 4° tion: Bucknam, recalled for further cross-examina By Mr. Warren: Q.—I neglected to ask you one question, Captain, when you were on the stand. What time did you leave the port of Victoria in 1889? A.—I can't say without referring to the diary, (referring to log) February 11th. Q.—Did you come into the port of Victoria again before he "Ariel" returned from Behring Sea? A.—Not to Victoria. Q.—So when you outfitted the "Ariel" that, year for her season's voyage 3'ou outfitted for the entire time before you left in February? A.—I outfitted for the spring catch. Q.—Where did you outfit for the Behring Sea trip? A.— I think in Cla3roquot. Q.—Where did you trans-ship your skins? A.—I believe some from Clayoquot and some from Sand Point, or in the neighborhood of Sand Point. Q.—How many skins did you send back from Sand Point? Go A.—Two hundred and eighty something. This book will show by going through it'. Q.—You can find one entry fo show that? A.—I don't know the date. (Examining) The 5th or 6th of July. Q.—Did you outfit entirely anew at Clayoquot, or whatever place it was on the west coast of Vancouver Island, before 3rou entered in Behring Sea, or were you partially equipped for the trip to Behring Sea when you left here in February? A.—Partially equipped. 7M (S. W. Bucknam—Cross. G. D. Logan—Direct—Cross.) Q.—And you took a very little, as a matter of fact, at Clayoquot Sound? A.—Took on what we considered neces- " sary for the balance of the A'oyage. Q._You took on very little? A.—Took on $600 or $700 worth. Q.—$600 or $700 worth of provisions? A.—Yes. Q.—Before you left for Behring Sea in the year 1889 had _ you conversed with captains and other people regarding sealing matters here, as to the length of your voyage, and the probable time of your leaving Behring Sea? A.—Yes, I had. George D. Logan was called as a witness on the part of 2o Great Britain and was duly sworn. Direct examination in chief by Sir C. II. Tupper: Q.—Mr. Logan, what is your occupation? A.—I keep a trading dore. Q.—You are a trader? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you remember the "W. P. Sayward" in 1889? A. —Yes. Q.—Did you keep a tally of her catch in September, 1889? 30 A.—I did. Q.—Where did the "W. P. Sayward" bring the seal skins to in September, 1889? A.—She landed them at Jennings wharf. Q.—In Victoria? A.—Yes. Q.—For whom did you keep the tally? A.—The chief officer; the mate asked me to keep the tally for him. Q.—As the skins came off the ship? A.—As the skins came out of the ship. Q.—Were they put into sacks? A.—Yes. 40 Q.—Did you see them put into sacks? A.—Yes. Q.—How many in a sack? A.—Ten. Q.—You saw ten put in eae.h sack and the sacks counted? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you keep a record of each sack? A.—Yes. Q.—Have you it with you? A.—Yes. Q.—What did you make the total number of skins? A.— 1,812. Q.—Your books show that? A.—Yes. Q.—To whom were these sacks delivered? A.—To Mor- 5° ris Moss. Q.—In Victoria? A.—Yes. Q.—He is not here now? A.—No, Q.—He is dead? A.—Yes. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Were the skins that were taken out of the "W. P. Sayward" in bunches? A.—No, they were counted out on the deck separately and the sack. 6° Q.—Were they kenched in the bins? A.—I cannot say. I did not see them until they came on deck. Each skin was thrown up separately and then there was a man on deck rolled them up a little and put them into a sack and I counted them going into the sack. Q.—You rolled up two skins together? A.—No, single skins. Q.—Do you know, of your personal knowledge, whether these skins came from Behring Sea or not? A.—I do not. Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—Who was the master of the "W. P. Saywar i ' I believe Capt. Wilson was. Q.—Did he assist in that counting? holding the tally againd me. Mr. Peters:—I may state to the Commissioners that at the present time, we are not in a position to call any more witnesses this afternoon. We think there would be a saving of time if the Commissioners now adjourned until morning. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do I understand you propose to take up the "Thornton" in the morning ? Mr. Peters:—Unless there is any evidence to be given in rebuttal by my learned friend in the "Carolena" case. Mr. Dickinson:—I do not believe it would be possible. We will endeavour to produce the witnesses when we can get them. Mr. Peters:—It would be desirable to do that in the morning if my learned friend can find it possible. The Commissioners rose at four o'clock. The following testimony of Wentworth E. Baker, taken as hereinafter stated, is here printed for convenience. December 17, 1896. Wentworth E. Baker was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—In what case will this witness give his tetimony, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—This witness will first give evidence which will be applicable to the whole of the cases of 1889 on the question of catch, keeping it distinctly separate as I go along. We shall have to examine him shortly on a special fact with regard to the case of the "Pathfinder'-' in 1890. If my learn- £o ed friend wishes to reserve his cross-examination on that point he may. Mr. Dickinson:—Then the fird examination you have plies to all the cases in 1889? Mr. Peters:—It applies to all the cases in 18S9, and, I think, with regard to certain questions of weather in the Behring Sea in the months of July and Augud it will be applicable to all the cases. Ill IO 716 (W. E. Baker—Direct.) Mr. Dickinson:—Do you mean to use it in the case of the "Carolena?" Mr. Peters:—T do not propose to refer so much to the case of the "Carolena," because, as a matter of fact, this witness did not fish in ihe Behring Sea at that time. ■ The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—And 3'ou do not use it in the case of the "Carolena? Mr. Peters:—I do not thinl that case. 20 40 50 it has much applicability to 30 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you use it in that case at all or not? Mr. Peters:—I do not think it applies. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The stenographer would note that we are taking the evidence for the "Pathfinder" separately. Mr. Peters:—I will take it distinctly separate, so that it can be laid aside. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—And this witness, it will be understood, is by agreement taken out of order. One part of the evidence is to be used in the case of the "Pathfinder," 1890, Claim 21, and the other in the cases of 1889. Mr. Peters:—Yes. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Where do you live, Captain Baker? A.—In Victoria, sir. Q.—How long have you lived in Victoria? A.—About 9 years. Q.—Where did you originally come from? A.—Nova Sofia. Q.—When did you come from Nova Scotia? In what year; A.—I came eiirect here from Nova Scotia in 1887. 60 Q.—In what ship did you come? A.—In the "Viva." Q.—Were you master of her? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—You brought her around from Nova Scotia to Victoria? A.—Yes, sir; from Halifax to Victoria. Q.—I believe for Mr. Munsie? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—He bought the "Viva?" A.—Yes, sir; he bought the "Viva." Q.—Will you be kind enough to tell me how many men 3'ou had on board the "Viva" bringing her around the Horn? A.—Seven all told—the captain, two mates, three seamen, and the cook. Q.—Generaly speaking, will you tell me what the captain's wages were coming around? A.—$50 per month. Q.—And the wages of the mates? A.—I think it was $30 for the first mate and $20 for the second, and the seamen got either $15 or $16 per month, I forget which. Q.—These were the salaries per month? A.—Yes, sir. The Commisdoner on the part of the United States:—Excuse me; I want to be able to apply this testimony that is now being taken in regard to each case. What is it for? Mr. Peters:—We are coming to the question of the value of the vessels that were brought around from Nova Scotia. I am not going into any further particulars except the wages of the men. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I asked you if it was applicable to the case of the "Carolena," and you said no. Mr. Peters:—I am not going to apply it to the case of the 'Carolena"—the "Carolena" did not come around the Horn. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It refers to the vessels that came from the other side of the continent. The Commisdoner on the part of the United States:—I want to know what position we are in. What testimony will this be read into? Mr. Peters:—It will be read into the cases for 1887 down to this point. Direct examination continued by Mr. Peters: Q.—You gave me the wages of the seamen at $15 or $16 per month; did you give me the wages of the cook? A.—I think it was $20 per month, but will not be positive. Q.—And it took you how many days to come around the Horn? A.—165. Q.—Until you came ar°und here in 1887 did you know anything about sealing? A.—Nothing whatever. Q.—Had you even seen your first seal? A.—Not to my knowledge. Q.—Did you go sealing in 1887? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you go sealing in 1888? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—As captain of what vessel? A.—The "Viva." Q.—In 1889 did you go sealing? A.—Yes ,sir. Q.—As captain of what vessel? A.—The "Viva." Q-—In 1890 did you go sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—As captain of what? A.—The "Viva." Q-—In 1891 did you go sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—As captain of what vessel? A.-«-Captain of the va." Q-—In 1892 did yon go sealing? A.—Yes sir. Q.—As captain of what vessel? A.—Captain of the C. H. Tupper. Mr. Dickinson:—We will have to ge vessel. he tonnage of that Mr. Peters:—In 1893 did you go sealing? A. Yes sir. Q.—In what vessel? A.—The "Oscar and Hattie." Q.—In 1894 did you go sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—In what vessel? A.—The "Pioneer." Q.—In 1895 did you go sealing? A,—Yes, sir. -i8 (W. E. Baker—Direct.) Q.—As captain of what vessel? A.—The "Pioneer." Q.—In 1896 did you go sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—As captain of what vessel? A.—The "Pioneer." Q.—So that from 1888 to 1896 you have been out sealing every year as master of a vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—If you had no experience in 1887 you have had experience since? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Generalty speaking, have you been a successful man or not? A.—Very successful, I think. Q.—As a matter of fact has there been any other sealing man as successful as you have been? Mr. Dickinson:—I do not think that question is in order. Mr. Peters:—Well, I will take the general statement:— Q.—You have been very successful? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—We will come to the year 1889, and you went out that year on the "Viva?" A.—Yes, sir. 20 Q.—What trip did you go on? A.—I went on the Cali- fornian coast. Q.—We will call it for the sake of distinction, the southern coast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You went there about what time of the year? A.— Some time in February. Q.—And you took the usual time on that voyage, I presume? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On that voyage did you have any success? A.—I had. 3° Q.—Have you a book showing each day the catch you made during that year? A.—Yes, sir, Q.—Have you that book with 3'ou? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Can you refer to that book and tell me what you caught on the southern coast during the year 1889? A.—589 is the number. Q.—Where did you catch those? M A.—On the southern trip. Q.—When you speak of the southern coast, will you tell us how far that trip extended? What is the northern point of 40 it? A.—Usually to Cape Flattery. Q.—And south to where? A.—To San Francisco. Q.—And it was, generally speaking, on that ground that you fished in the first part of the 3'ear 1889? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you land your southern catch at Victoria? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Before proceeding on your northern trip? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you then start on your northern trip? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Including the Behring Sea? A.—Including the Behring Sea. Q.—And also the sea on the way up to it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—By a refjftence to your book, can you tell me when you first had seals on.your northern trip that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Give me the date please? A.—The 7th May. Q.—Can you tell me by reference to your book how many seals you caught on vour northern trip before you got to 60 Behring Sea in 1889? " A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You caught how many? A.—872. Q.—Can 3'ou tell me the total catch you made in Behring Sea that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many? A?—2180. Q.—Now, can you give me the total catch for the season? A.—3641 I think it adds up. Q.—That was the total catch for the season? A.—Yes, sir. So (W. E. Baker—Direct.) Q.—Now, can you tell me by a reference to your book what day you commenced sealing in Behring Sea that 3'ear? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—When? A.—The 4th of July. Q.—And what was the Tast day you fished in Behring Sea that year? A.—The 21st August. Q.—Can you give me the number of days in July that you lo fished in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is the days in which you caught seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many? A.—23 days in July. Q.—And how many days in August? A.—15 days. Q.—What was the weather during the months of July and August—good or bad? A.—Very good, sir. Q.—For the sake of convenience, I have taken those days off and probably It might be bdter to read them to the witness. 20 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I would like to have them iu the notes. Mr. Peters:—I will read this over, and if I read them aright you say "yes." It gives the day of the month and the number you caught on each day. July 4th, you caught 15 seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—July 6th you caught 6 seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—July 7th you caught 4 seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—July 8th you caught 2 seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—July 10th you caught 61 seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—July nth you caught~96 seals? Q.—July 12th you caught 22 seals? Q.—July 13th you caught 73 seals? Q.—July 14th you caught 65 seals? Q.—July 15th you caught 65 seals? Q.—July 16th you caught 3 seals? Q.—July" 17th you caught 1 seal? Q.—July 18th you caught 2 seals? Q.—July 19th you caught 9 seals? Q.—July 20th you caught 4 seals? Q.—July 21st you caught 40 seals9 Q.—July 22nd you caught 109 seals? Q.—July 24th you caught 170 seals? Q.—July 25th you caught 96 seals? Q.—July 26th you caught 89 seals? Q-—July 29th you caught 31 seals? Q.—July 30th you caught 151 seals? Q— I have added that up and the total made 1116; is that correct? A.—I think so. Q.—Now, we will turn to August, and I will call out in the A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes; sir. A.—Yes,, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. same way, and if I am correct you will answer Yes, sir. Q.—August 5th you caught 97 sea Q.—August 6th you caught 164 sea -August 7th you caught Q-—August 8th you caught 15 seals Q.—August 9th you caught 65 seals? Q.—August 10th you caught 1 sea Q-—August 11th you caught 63 seals? Q.—August 12th 3'ou caught Q.—August 13th you caught 3 seals? Q.—Augud 14th you caught 165 seals? Q.—August 15th you ca Q.—August 16th you caught 99 seals? Q.—August 19th you caught 80 seals? Q.—August 20th you caught 27 seals? A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A.—Yes, sir. A,—Yes, sir. ** 720 (W. E. Baker—Direct.) Q.—August 21st you caught 40 seals? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—I find that the total is 1064; is that correct? A.—I have not added them up, but I presume it is. Q.—Now, having made ibis general statement with regard to that year, let me ask you were you hunting on the "Viva" with white men or with Indians? A.—White men. Q.—Can you tell me the number of boats she had? A.— She had seven altogether; six hunting boats and a stern boat. Q.—Was the stern boat used as a regular hunter that year? A.—No, sir; not that year. Q.—But occasionally it was used by whom? A.—By myself. Q.—And that was the only occasion? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was your complement of men? A.—23 all told. Q.—And of course you used guns in 1889 ? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In the "Viva" how many hunters had you to each boat? A.—One hunter. Q.—And how man3* men to each boat? A.—Two men. Q.—Two men besides the hunter? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is to say, you had a hunter, a boat steerer and a puller? A.—Yes, sh. Q.—In 1888 vou went out sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what "ship? A.—In the "Viva." Q.—Will you kindly tell me when you began your voyage in 1888? A.—I began sealing the 21st February. Q.—On what you call the southern coast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is from San Francisco to Cape Flattery? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—What is the last day's sealing that you made on that trip? A.—May 16th. Q.—And you got on that trip how many seals? A.—806. Q.—Then did you start on the northern trip? A.—Yes, sir. q.—Can you tell me the first day's hunting you had on your northern trip? A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Dickinson:—I suppose this testimony bears on the average catch in 1.S89? Mr. Peters:—And also on the special claims of 1887 where they were prevented from fishing in 1888. Mr. Peters:—What is the first day's catch you had on your northern tiM? A.—On the 2nd June. Q.—That was on the way from Victoria up to Behring Sea, or what is called the northern coast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Can you tell me how many seals you caught on that northern trip before you got to Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many? A.—436. Q.—Can you tell me the first day's sealing you had in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When was it? A.—July 8th. Q.—Can you tell me the first day's sealing you had in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was it? A.—September 2nd. Q.—Can you fell me the total number of seals you caught in Behring Sea? A—Yes, sir. Q.—What is it? A.—1,568. Q.—The total you caught on your northern trip was 2,004? A.—Yes, sir, on my northern trip and in Behring Sea. Q.—What was your total catch for the season? A.—2,875. Q.—In making up what you caught in Behring Sea and also on the northern trip is there anything to be added to the figures you have given? A.—Yes, sir, 05 seals which are not included. (W. E. Baker—Direct.) Q.—Not included in the figures you mentioned before? No, sir. Q.—So that 3'ou total catch was what? A.—My total catch was 2,875; I included the 65 seals in that. Q.—That included the 65 that were caught in the stern boat? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Looking at your book again will you kindly tell me how many days you fished in Behring Sea in the month of July? A.—14 days. Q.—In the month of August how many days? A.—19 days. Q.—Are you sure that is right? I have marked 20 days here? A.—It was 19 days. Q.—And how many days in September? A.—One day. Q.—Can you tell me the total catch in July? A.—881. Q.—Give me the total catch for August that year? A.— 686. Q.—In addition to the catch you have mentioned for July and Augud, would there be something to be added for what was caught in the stern boat? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you got the amount in your book, showing what the stern boat did catch? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Just look at that and tell me what you caught in July anel August, the two months together? A.—She caught 54. Q.—And that would have to be added to the other figures for the catch in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1888 how many —I had six hunting boats and the stern boat on the southern trip. Q.—And on the Behring Sea trip how many boats had you ? A.—Five hunting boats and the stern boat.. Q.—Will you be kind enough to tell me what the weather was like for hunting that year in Behring Sea? A.—The weather was favourable. Q.—How many men did you have in 1888? A.—I hael 23 all told on the southern trip, and on the Behring Sea trip I had 20 all told, if I remember aright. Q.—Now you have made a statement there as to what seals you caught daily in the Behring Sea that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you kindly read that out? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Does that include the stern boat? A.—The stern boat is separate but I will give it afterwards. Q.—What you are about to read now does not include the stern boat? A.—No. Q.—Please state the number of seals you caught in that vear in July and August, and the day vou caught them on? A.—On July 9th I caught 1 seal; July 9th, 9 seals; Julv 10th, 31 seals; July 11th, 7 seals; July 12th, 18 seals; July 13th, 1 seal; July 14th, 56 seals; July loth, 181 seals; July Kith. 47 seals; Julv 17th, 44 seals; Julv 18th, 151 seals; July 19th, 154 seals; July 26th, 62 seals; July 28th, 119 seals; that is all for July. Q.—Now give us the. month of August? .V.—On August 5th I caught nine seals; August 7th. 24 seals; August 8th. 3 seals; August 10th, 6 seals; August 12th, 16 seals; August just 14th, seals: August 13th, 7 seal August 16th. 1 seal; August 18th. 6 seals; August 19th, 8 seals; August 20th, 73 seals; August 21st. 9 seals; August 22nd, 8 seals; August 23rd. I seal: August 25th, 55 seals; August 26th, 50 seals; August 27th, 179 seals; August 30th, 1 seal. That is all for August. Q.—And in September how many did .vou catch? A.—I caught one seal on the 2nd September, that is all. 0-—Be kind emough Io (urn to the stem boat account, taking the same month, and give us the number of seals 46 722 10 20 A.- A.- 30 40 50 6e (W. E. Baker—Direct.) caught for each day. A.—On July 10th I caught 2 seals; July 12th, 1 seal; July 14th, 1 seal; July 15th, 11 seals; July 18th, 5 seals; July 19th, 4 seals; July 26th, 1 seal; July 28th. 4 seals. That is all for July. Q._Now with regard to August? A.—On August 14th, 14 seals; August 20th, 1 seal; August 26th, 1 seal; August 27th, 9 seals. Q.—Now did you go to the Behring Sea the following year, namely, 1890? A.—Yes, sir. q.—What vessel did you go in? A.—In the "Viva." Q.—How many boats diel she have that year? -V.—Six hunting boats and a stern boat. Q.—And how many men? A.—Twenty-three men. Q.—Will you kindly tell me for that year, did you go on any other trips besides the northern trip? A.—I went on the southern trip. Q.—Will you tell me the first day you began fishing in Behring Sea in 1890? You have that stated there in the book also. A.—Yes, sir, it was the 7th of July. Q.—And what was the last day that you fished there? A. —September 12th. Q.—Could you tell me your total catch for the Behring Sea that year? A.—Yes. sir! 2,015. Q.—Give me the number of days you fished in July? Fifteen days. Q.—And the number of days you fished in August? Twenty-two days. Q.—And the number of days you fished in September? A. —Eight days. Q.—Can you remember the number you caught in July? Mr. Dickinson:—There is no probable catch claimed for 1890, and we submit that it is remote, and the same rule would cover as was in the minds of your Honours when you excluded any examination of Mr. Alexander, the United States Fishery Commission Agent, by us, as to the catches of 1894 and 1895. Of course, if there was a probable catch claimed for 1890 there would be no question about it under your Honour's ruling to take the testimony as to probable catches, reserving the question for future argument. There is no question here as to the cases of seizures in 1886 where they claimed ihe probable e'atcb for 1887, or the seizures for 1887 where they claimed Ihe probable catch for 1888. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest3-:—I do not remember what was ruled before, but it seems to me that the catch for any reasonable year, especialty after the time in respect to which the claim is made wouldliave a bearing, because presumably the seals are not appreciably greater. Therefore at all events within a limited number of years they may be considered to be about the same in number, and the catch in any year to be reasonably close—not getting to remote from the date in question—would seem to me to have a very obvious bearing upon the probable catch for the year in question. If we have ruled out evidence of this kind in 1894 the proper course would be to allow that evidence to be given, if it is considered that 1894 is not too remote. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It was ruled out after very careful consideration. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest|:—The evidence might not be admissible in 1894, because at that time the mode of sealing was changed after the regulations came in force, and, of course, wifi a changed mode of sealing the circumdances would not be the same and the evidence would not be applicable; but it would be otherwise where the mode of fishing is the game, The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—in 1889 was not the fleet practically driven out of Behring Sea? Mr. Peters:—In 1889 .this man was not. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The warning had the effect of praciirally driving all the boats out of Behring Sea. 40 SO Go Mr. Peters:—It drove out a great many. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It practically drove out the entire fleet. I remember distinctly the ruling, it was about 1894. We held that you could not put in the evidence as to 1894 because it gave the other dde the opportunity of going into the question as to whether there had not been circumstances which changed the conditions of seal life during the interval. It was opening up questions which it was not worth our while to investigate. Here comes, now, the same question to my mind. If the fnited States admitted that the circumstances were practically the same iu 1890 as they were in 1886 or 1887, then perhaps this wouli not come under the ruling we have made. However, my learned friend also desires to hear the evidence, and that settles the matter. Mr. Dickinson:—I was about to say that the intimation of His Lordship was sufficient for us. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It opens up the case so that you can show, whether or not there were special circumstances in that case. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Certainly. Mr. Dickinson:—It is open to show that the catch of 1890 was moelified by circumstances. Direct examination by Mr. Peters continued: Q.—Can you remember the number of seals you caught in July in the Behring Sea for the year 1890? A.—Yes, sir, 186. Q.—In August how many did you catch? A.—1,459. Q.—In September of that year how many did you catch? A.—370. Q.—How ma ly days did you catch seals on in July, 1890? A.—15 days. Q.—How many days did you catch seals in Augud 1890? A.—22 days. Q.—How many days did you, catch seals in September 1890? A.—Eight days. Q.—Give us the statement of what the catch was each day. Will you kindly read it off from your book? A.—On July 7th the catch was 1 seal; Julv 9th^ 1 se,al; July 1 lih, 4 seals; July 15th, 22 seals; July 18th. 2 seals; July 19th, 15 seals; July 20th, 22 seals; July 21st, 18 seals; July 22nd, 40 seals; July 23rd, 2 seals; July 24th. 30 seals; July 25th,' 16 seals; July 26th, 5 seals; July 29th. 1 seal: July 30th, 1 seal; that is all for July. Q.—Now give us the catch for the month of August? A. —On August 4th the catch was two seals; August 6th, 1 seal; August 8th, 42 seals; August 9th, 56 seals; Augud 10th, 131 seals; August 1.1th, 61 seals; August 12th, 79 seals; August 14th. 26 seals; Augast 15th, 39 seals; August 17th, 1 seal; August 18th, 2 seals; August 19th, 1 seal; August 21st, 3 seals; August 22nd, 204 seals; August 23rd, 175 seals; August 24th, 154 seals; August 25th, 64 seals; August 26th, 51 seals; Augud 27th, 66 seals: August 29th, 99 seals; August 30th, 168 seals; August 31st, 34 seals. That is all for August. .j i ^vx'jrnr. 724 10 (W. E. Baker—Direct.) Q.—Now give us the catch for September? A.—On September 1st I caught 80 seals; September 2nd, 6 seals; September 3rd, 113 seals; September 4th, 46 seals; September 7th, 1 seal; September 10th, 40 seals; September 11th, 4 seals; September 12th, 80 seals; that is all for September. Q.—Did you fish in Behring Sea in 1891 or 1892? A.—No, sir, I did not. Q.—Captain Baker, I wish generally to ask you one question. In fishing in the years you have mentioned in Behring Sea, would you tell me generally speaking what part of the sea you fished in? Take, say, with regard to the Pribyloff Islands. A.—The first two years I sealed mostly to the southward and westward of the Islands. Q.—And about what distance from the Islands? A.— From 60 to 90 miles. Q.—That is in 1888 and 1889? A.—Yes, sir. q.—And in 1890 whereabouts did you fish? A.—I" fished 20 the first part of the season to the westward and southward of the Islands. Q.—And about what distance from he Island? A.—From 60 to 90 miles. The latter part of the season 'I fished to the eastward. Q.—How far from the Islands? A.—From 40 to 60 miles. Q.—While you were at sea in 1889—now refer to your book and tell me what vessel you spoke—take first the 19th July, 1889? A.—I spoke the schooner "Patfinder" on that day. Q.—Did her captain come on'board you? A.—I am not positive whether I went on board him or whether he came on board me. Q.—Y'ou saw.her captain at all events, or you went on board him? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Had she sealskins on board when you got there? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—How many? A.—Four hundred and forty-nine. Q.—That is entered in your book, I believe? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you speak any other vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What other vessel did you speak on that day? A.—I spoke none other, but I spoke one the day before. Q.—What was she? A.—The "Annie C. Moore." Q.—Did you speak the "Penelope*"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the "Mary Ellen"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you find out what seals they had on board when you spoke them? Give me the dates on which you.spoke those vessels. A.—The "Penelope" I spoke on the 18th July. Q.—How many seals had she? A.—One hundred and ninety. I spoke the "Annie C. Moore"' on the 18th July. Q.—How many seals had she? A.—Three hundred. Q.—When did vou speak the Mary Ellen?" A.—On the 9th August. 30 40 50 Q-- dred. -How many seals had she A.—One thousand six hnn Q.—Was that for Behring Sea or was it the whole catch? A.—It was the whole catch for the season of the "Ylary Ellen." .. Q-—Who was her captain? A.—Captain McLean. Q.—Is that Captain Alexander or Captain Dan McLean? 6° A.—Capt. Alexander McLean. I also spoke two other schooners. (>.—What others did you speak? A.—The "Bennett Ruth- er" on the 2Dth July. Q.—Had she seals on board? A.—Two hundred. Q.—Did you speak any others? A".—I spoke the "Maggie Mac" on 30th July; she had 800 seal on board. Q.—That is all, is it? A.—Yes, sir, that is all. Q.—A mi these statements you got from the captains of the vessels? A.—Ye s, dr. Q.—At that time? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Yon entered them in your book at the time? -V.—Yes; sir. Q.—For your own information? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You do not guarantee they are correct? A.—No, but I put them down as correct Q.—I think I am correct in saying that you have always fished with white hunters? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And never used Indians? A.—No, sir. Q.—I want to ask you the general question—have you had anything to do with ordering the supplies of vessels from year to year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you always averaged in vessels about the same estimate? A.—Of the same. size. Q.—With the same number of boats? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What is the biggest number of boats you ever had? A.—Seven. Q.—Including the stern boat or what? A.—Including the stern boat. Q.—Tell me, generally speaking, what quantity of powder you take on your trip, and for what length do you think it would last? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You know, Mr. Peters, we have been over this ground two or three times. Why elo you not put the general question to him as indicated by Judge King? Why do you not ask him the quantity of powder he would take for a vessel of the dze he has spoken of? Mr. Peters:—Tell us how much powder you would take, say, for a five months' voyage? A.—About six kegs. Q.—And for a nine months' voj'age? A.—Twelve or thirteen kegs. ,Q.—As between Behring Sea and the south coast, where would you expect most of the shooting to be done—on the south coast or in the sea? A.—About the same. Q.—I mean to say, where do you get your biggest catch? A.—In Behring Sea. Q.—And where will you fire the most powder? Mr. Lansing—What year? Mr. Peters:—Any years they shot in Behring Sea—1887, 1888 or 1889? A.—Usually the most in Behring Sea. ' Cross-examination by Mr. Lansin Q.—Captain Baker, you say you have been very successful since you began sealing. Have you been as successful as any other captain you know of in this port? A.—I think so. Q.—Have you been more successful than any other captain you know of? A.—In some cases. Q.—In your experience for the years 1888, 1889 and 1890, were you not as successful as any other captain? A.—I was high line for the fleet. Q.—Were you not more successful than any other captain in those years? A.—In 1888 I was high line. Q.—In 1888 you made the largest catch? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And in 1889 j'ou made the larged catch? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And in 1890 you made the larged catch? A.—Yes, dr. 726 10 (W. E. Baker—Cross.) Q-—Do you think your vessel represented the average catch of those years? A.—She was high line. ■ She was above the average. Q--—A good deal above the average? A.—I could not say how much. Q.—Do you know how many vessels were out in 1889 from this port? A.—No, sir. Q.—Do you know about how many? A.—I would have to guess at it. Q.—You know about how many, captain, left this port in 1889? A.—Yes, I think there were about 40. Q.—For Behring Sea? A.—I think so; that is only a rough guess. Q.—Is it not a fact, captain, that, with over 23 vessels leaving this port in 1S89, the total catch in Behring Sea was about 16,500? A.—I do not know the total catch. Q.—I think you stated where you made your principal 20 catches in those years? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1890 where was your principal sealing ground? A. •—To the westward and southward. Q.—In 1890? A.—Yes, sir; during the fird part of the season; the latter part to the eastward. Q.—Did you make your largest catch in the latter part? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Then your chief hunting ground was where you were at the last of the season? A.—That was the bed. Q.—Did you find seals there in any other years? A.—1 3° had never been there before. Q.—To the eastward you would consider the best hunting ground? A.—In that year. Q.—And you had never been there before, so that you do not know but it was the best hunting in other 3'ears? A.—1 do not, sir. Q.—Do the hunting grounds change from year to year? A. —I think they do. Q.—What would you say was the reason of that? A.— I do not know, except being hunted. 4° Q.—is it on account of the change of their food? A.—It may be. Q.—Is their food migratory—wandering? A.—I don't know that. Q.—You know what they feed on? A.—They feed on many things. Q.—Do they rove about in the water, or are they always found in one locality? A.—Most always. Q.—Did you, in 1892, January 22, make a statement before 5° Mr. Milne, the Collector of Customs here, which I now show you as reprinted in Vol. 5 of the American Reprint, page 956? A.—(Examining it)—Yes, I made a statement. Q.—You did make that statement? A.—I made a statement; I would not swear whether it was that one. Q.—Did you, in that sBtement, in reply to question 41, say as follows: "Q.—What is your opinion of the seals on the coast and in Behring Sea, are they increasing or decreasing? A.—From my experience I have not seen any decrease, but go 1 have noticed also that they change their grounds from time • to time, and where you find them this year you may not find them the next. This was very remarkable during the year 1890, for the seals were all found to the eastward of the Prib- iloff Islands while in former years they were found to the westward." You made that statement? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, in 1889, you sa3' there were twenty-three days in which 3'ou took seals. How maii3T of those days were lowering? A.—Nearly every day. I could not tell exactly. IO (W. E. Baker—Cross.) Q.—Then on some of the lowering days you only took one seal? A.—Those days would be days we shot them from the vessel. q.—When 3'ou say 23 days, it does not represent the lowering days at all? A.—Not the lowering days. Q._Who were your hunters in 1889? A.—William Payne, Oscar Scarff, Edward Shields, William Shields, George Howe and Thomas Howe. Q.—Now in 1889 those were all experienced hunters were they not? A.—All but one. q.—Men who had been in the business several years and shot seals for a long time? A.—I don't know just how long —a few years bdore. Q.—You know such men as Oscar Scarf and Ed Shields had been hunting for several years? A.—A few years they had been hunting. Q.—Were they not as experienced as any men out of this 20 port? A.—Yes,sir. Q.—Were they not as good shots as any men that sealed from this port? A.—They were. Q.—Were they not better than the average? A.—Better than the average. Q.—A good deal better? A.—They were better. Q.—In 188S would the same statement apply as to days in which you took seals? It does not represent the lowering days? A.—No, sir. Q.—And, for instance, I think you stated that on August •jo 8,16, 23 and 30th and September 2nd, you only took one seal on those days. Would those be lowering days? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were your hunters that year as experienced as the. year before? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The same men, some of them? A.—Some of them the same. ii.—Was Shields with you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was Scarf with you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is 3rou retained the most experienced men ? A.— 40' I can name them all. Q.—You kept the most experienced men, did you? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Well, in 1889 you kept those men that you had in 1888, the most experienced? A.—Some of them. Q.—And in 1890, how was it in regard to hunters? Did you have the same men? A.—No, sir. Q.—Entirely different? A.—I think some of the same. Q.—Did you have Scarf? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you have Shields? A.—I can name them over, 50 sir. I had Thomas Howe, George Howe; then I had for a while Frank Howe and changed him for James Parks; Wm. Stoker, Wm. Williams and Edward Cantillan. Q.—Those are all experienced men, are they? A.—No, sir. Q.—Which ones were not? A.—Frank Howe and James Parks. Q.—The others were experienced? A.—The others were all experienced. Q.—Now does it make any difference in the result as to whether your hunters are experienced or not? A.—Yes, sir. 6° Q.—And therefore, a man with three years' experience if he was a good shot, would get more seals than he would in his earlier years? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now take one vessel with one set of hunters, and take your vessel with the hunters you had—is it fair to base the catch of that vessel on what you did? A.—There were many other vessels had as good hunters. Q.—Answer my question. Would it be fair— (W. E. Baker—Cross.) Mr. Peters:—That is hardly a question for cross-examination. My learned friend asks him if he puts all experienced hunters against all inexperienced hunters. There can be but one answer. (Question read.) A.—If they had as good hunters as I had it would be. Q.—You said you had better men than any other vessel io that went out? A.—No, sir; I didn't say that. Q.—You did in the first part, when 1 asked you as to Shield? A.—No better than any other vessel. Q.—Can you name any other vessel that had as good hunters and as successful a captain? A.—I think they all had as good captains. I do not know what hunters each schooner had, sir. Q.—That does not answer my question. A.—I do not see how else to answer it. Q.—Well, admitting, then, that their hunters had not as 20 much experience as your hunters, would you say that it would be fair to base the catch of the other vessel on what you did? A.—No, sir. Q.—What other modifications besides inexperience of the hunters enter into the catch in Behring Sea, or the probabilities? A.—The weather, for one thing. The seals are wilder sometimes than at other times. You cannot get near- them so well. Q.—The skill of the captain? A.—Yes, sir; in some de- gree. 3 Q.—And rain? A.—Wind and weather. Q.—And fog, I suppose you will include in that? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Would you say there was any luck in running across the seals when you are looking for them on your schooner? A.—Yes, a good deal; they call it luck. Q.—A good eleal of luck, is there not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You might go any one year in Behring Sea and return to the same place another year and not find any seals. So 40 where seals are any one year is no evidence that they will be there another year; and when seals are there in July it is no evidence that they will be there in August? A.—That is, in certain parts. Does that apply to Behring Sea? Q.—It is only Behring Sea I am talking about. A.—Wherever I found them in July I always found them in August. Q.—Did you always go over the same ground in August that you did in July? A.—Most always; sometimes we changed. Q.—How about 1890? A.—I changed that year and went 50 to the eastward. Q.—Why? A.—Because there wern't so many to the west ward. Q.—When you say to the westward you mean in what direction from the islands? A.—Principally west. Q.—Have you had any experience with Indian crews? A. —None whatever. Q.—Do you think a vessel carrying Indian hunters makes as large catches as with white men? A.—With spears they would do better in Behring Sea in those years. 60 Q.—Make larger catches? A.—I think so, with spears, not with shotguns. Q.—Did they make larger catches than you did in Behring Sea in those years? A.—Made average catches. Q._Did they make larger catches? A.—Just an average catch. Q.—Did-they make larger catches than you? A.—Not larger. Q,—Did you make as large a catch in Behrinj did with white hunters? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did any vessel carrying Indians make a catch anywhere near as large as yours? A.—I don't remember the different catches. Q.—And is it not a fact, Captain, that some of them had three times as many hunters as you on board? A.—Not white men. Q.—No vessel in those years had eighteen canoes on board? A.—I don't remember of any; they may have had. Q.—A great many had twice as many hunters as you? A. Yes, sir. Q.—And then they did not get as many, did they? A.— No, sir. Q.—So the catch that you made with white hunters is no evidence of what would be taken bv a vessel with Indian A.—Thev altogether different style. 30 40 Co Q.—That has nothing to do with it, has it ? A.—No, sir. Q.—Then you don't want it understood in the testimony you have given that a crew of six Indians was -equal to a crew of six white men in Behring Sea in those years? A.— If they were experienced with a shotgun they would be as good. Q.—Using canoes and spears? A.—They would not do as well with canoes and spears as white men with shotguns. Q.—You say your southern trip begins in February. When do you return to port? A.—In what year? Q._Well. in 1889, for instance? A.—About April 21, I think I arrived. Q.—How far north did you sail? A.—To Cape Flattery. Q.—That is the furthest north? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1890, when did you go out for the spring catch? A.—I went out in February, I think—January 26th. Q.—What time did you return? A.—I didn't come to Victoria that year. . Q.—What time did you refit on the West Coast? A.— 25th of April. Q.—How far had you sailed at that time? A.—As far as Cape Flattery. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—You were asked by Mr. Lansing as to the seals changing their grounds. You gave evidence that in the year 1890, especially, you changed your ground to the eastward from where you had been previously fishing, which' was to the west, northwest and southwest of the islands. Will you tell me how far those two points you were fishing were apart? A.—Oh, from 150 to 200 miles. Q.—And in ordinaiy years what space had you hunted over in Behring Sea when you were hunting to the west, northwest and southwest of the Pribyloff Islands, say in 1889? A.—Probably a radius of one hundred miles. Q.—Now, I understood you to tell Mr. Lansing that the seals change their haunts from year to 3'ear; as a matter of fact, are they always in Behring Sea somewhere around the Pribiloff islands? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—He also asked you as to whether this list you read showed the lowering days. You stated Tt did not, but that sometimes you shot seals from the vessel. Tell me what was the greatest number of seals you have shot from a vessel in a dav? A.—I don't remember of shooting over three in one dav.' m (W. E. Baker—Re-direct. Laughlin McLean—Direct.) Q.—Then if you find a day with more than three seals shot in it, it must have been a day on which you lowered. Is that what you mean? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, in regard to Indian hunters, I understood you to say you had had no experience. Have you ever made it a business to ascertain which is best, white hunters or Indian hunters? A.—No, dr. io Q-—From actual experience you can tell us nothing about Indian hunters? That is your answer, is it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I understood you to say that some of the vessels carried double as many Indian hunters as you carried. Do you know anything about, from actual experience, what number of hunters these vessels did carry? A.—No, sir. Q.—With regard to the total catch made in Behring Sea in 1889, you say 3'ou have no knowledge now? A.—No, sir. Q.—Nor do you pretend to make up any average? A.—No sir. 20 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Was this vessel built for mackerel or bank fishing? A.—Bank fishing. Q.—Used for mackereling? A.—She was new when I nought her. Q.—And you say she was a fast vessel? A.—Yes, sir. 30 The following testimony of Laughlin McLean was taken out of order by consent as applicable to all cases subsequent to the "Carolena," and is printed here for convenience. Laughlin McLean'was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn, on December 17, 1896. So Direct examination by Mr. Beique: 4° Q.—You redde in the city of Victoria, I believe? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And you are about going sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How long have you been, Captain, in the sealing business? A.—Since 1887. Q.—Inclusive? A.—Inclusive. Q.—On what vessel were you in 1887? A.—On the schooner ' Favourite." Q.—In 1888 what vessel were you on? A.—"Favourite." Q.—In 1889? A.—"Favourite"." Q.—As master? A.—As master, yes, sir. Q.—Did you go into Behring Sea any of these years? A. —Yes, dr. Q.—What time did you go into Behring Sea in 1887? A.— The 10th of July. Q.—When did you leave Behring Sea? A.—I JElll have to refer to my books (examining memorandum). In 1887.lite last day of sealing was the 27th of August, and I came out through the pass on the 5th of September. Q.—In 1888 when did you enter Behring Sea and when did you leave? A.—(Referring to memorandum)—8th of July I entered Behring Sea, 3rd of September I left the Sea. My last sealing dav was the 27th of August. Q.—That was in what year? A.—1888. Q.—Why did you leave so early? A.—The weather got bad. Q.—In 1889 when did you enter Behring Sea? A.—On the 14th of July. 60 /5<- (Laughlin .McLean—Direct.) Q.—When did you leave? A.—I sealed last on the 25th of August. Q.—And you left directly after, I suppose? A.—A few aays after. Q.—In 1889 how many canoes had you? A.—Eleven. Q.—Had you a white crew or an Indian crew? A.—Indian crew. l0 Q-—Did you keep the daily catch in July and August, 1889? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you give it to us? A.—(Referring to book)—On the 13th of July, 11 seals; 16th, 42; 17th, 21; 18th, 39; 19th, 30; 21st, 14; 22nd, 12; 23rd, 7; 24th, 101; 25th, 70; 26th, 11; 28th, 4; 29th, 49; 30th, 170; 31st, 16; August 1st, 18; 5th, 149; 6th, 105; 7th, 26; 9th, 64; 10th, 111: 11th, 28; 12th, 9; 14th, 23; 15th, 65; 16th, 3; 18th, 7; 19th, 17; 21st, 19; 22nd, 4; 25th 49. Q.—Were those all lowering days? A.—Yes, sir, all low- 20 ering days. Q.—In all how mam' seals? A.—1305 in July and August. Q.—In what portion of Behring Sea did you keep during July and August? A.—Well, to the wedward and southward, and westward of the Pribyloff Islands. Q.—What distance from the Islands, about? A.—Some distance; I was not very far from the Islands, to the westward and southward and wedward—I can't tell exactly. Q.—Were you on what you would consider then the best sealing grounds? A.—No, sir. 3° Q.—What do 3'ou consider the best sealing grounds? A.— To the eastwarel of that. Q.—Why didn't you go to the east? A.—Because I was, afraid of getting seised. Q.—Had any seizures taken place the previous years? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—You stated that in 1889 you were on a more favorable ground. Can you indicate on the chart before you on what grounds you went for the purpose of avoiding seizure. Indi- cate by latitude anel longitude? A.—The ground that I ^ worked on would be in a direct line from Ounalaska to St. Paul's Island. . My usual sealing ground woulei be in a direct line from Ounalaska to St. Paul's Island, about 167.50—55.20; from 55.15 to 53.30. Q.—Is that where you would have been in 1887 and 1888? A.—Perhaps not exactly that. Q.—Approximately that? A.—I would cruise around there; I don't say that I would stop there. Q.—But that is what you call the mod favorable ground? r0 A.—Around there; in that vicinity. Q.—I believe you did state the number of canoes you had in J889? A.—In 1889 I had eleven canoes. Q.—An Indian crew? A.—An Indian crew. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—He has stated the total catch for July and August; has he separated them? 6o Mr. Beique:—He has given the July catch, your Honour. (To witness.) Q.—Now let us come back to 1887. You stated you were on the "Favorite" in 1887? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you give your daily catch for 1887? A.—On the 10th of July, 2; Iltli. 23; 13th, 55; 15ih. 13; 17th, 46; 18th, 68: 21st, 59; 22nd. ."i; 23rd, 18; 24th. 171; 25th, 9; 27th, 4; 29th. 4: 31st, 56: August 1st, 16; 2nd. 29; 4(h, 83; 5th, 105; 0th, 108; 8th, 109; 9tb, 36; 12th, 103; 15.th, 10; 17th, 26; 18th, 732 (Laughlin McLean—Direct—Cross.) 147; 19th, 3; 20th, 14; 22nd, 59; 23rd, 16; 24th, 122; 25th, 140; 26th, 19;. and the 26th is the last day of sealing. Q.—Were these all lowering days? A.—All lowering days. Q.—What number of canoes did you have in 1887? A.— White hunters. Q.—You had boafs? A.—Six boats, io Q*—Including the stern boat? A.—Including the stern boat. Q.—Was the stern boat used much? A.—No, sir very seldom. Q.—In 1887 what was the total catch in Behring Sea? A.— 1884. q.—Now in 1888 can you give your daily catch in Behring Sea? A.—I can't very well give the details in 1888 without going through the whole book again. I could give the totals. The total was 1834. 2o Q.—Have you stated from what time to what time? A.— the 8th of July commenced. Q.—And you left? A.—On the 27th of August. Q.—What crew had you in 1888? A.—Indian. Q.—How many canoes? A.—I had 13 canoes. Q.—Any guns? A.—Yes, sir, we had guns, not the same kind that we use now, muzzle loading. Q.—Were they much used? A.—Well, they used to be used very much; it would take me half an hour to load one. Q.—They used spears? A.—Yes, they did. 30 Q.—Would it take you any time to go through your book and give the daity catch in 1888? Yon can give it from day to day? A.—Yes, from time to time. Mr. Beique:;—I would like to get the information from him as to the coast catch for these two years, but I understand he has not got the book with him for those two years, so I will have to recall him. To witness:—Q.—In 1889 did your Indian crew use guns? A.—In 1889, yes, sir. Q.—What kind of guns? A.—Some used muzzle loading and some used breech-loading. Q.—They used principally spears? A.—Principally spears. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren. Q.—Captain McLean, diet you see Sir George Baden-Powell? A.—I did. 50 Q.—Did you make a statement to him of the catch of the .'■•Favourite" for 1887? A.—I might have; I don't remember. Q.—You made a statement to him, did you not? A.—I can't remember that I did. I remember of meeting him once, that is all. Q.—You had some conversation with him, did you not? A.—I don't remember whether I did or not; there was five or six of us met him in the custom house here. Q.—For what purpose did you meet him? A.—I don't re- 60 member. Q.—Did you not meet him for the purpose of giving information as to seal life and as to the catch of the vessels? A.—Very likely I did something like that. Q.—But that is what you talked about at that time, is it not? A.—I think it was. Q.—And if he and his colleague published a report of the catch of the "Favourite" in 1887 he secured that information from you in all probability? A.—I suppose he did. Q.—Now, to refresh your recollection as to whether you had a conversation with Sir George Baden-Powell, let me refer you to an affidavit you made on the second day of Oc- 3o tober, 1892, American Re-print, Vol. that and see if that is a copy of the affidavit you made at that time? A.—(Examining) Yes, sir. Q.—I will read from this affidavit a reference of Sir George Baden-Powell for the purpose of getting it in the record. It says here, does, it not, that Sir George Baden-Powell asked about this last year: "And I gave an account of my hunters, and they were Indians." That statement is contained in this affidavit? A.—Yes. Q.—That refreshes your recollection that you did have some conversation with this British Commissioner? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—I call your attention to the report of the Behring Sea Commission contained in the American Re-print, Vol. 6, page 285 of the catch of the "Favourite" for 1887, and ask you if it is not stated there that the total catch of the "Favourite" was 1887 for that year? Mr. Beique:—The witness does not appear to have been examined about this in this affidavit. The question was put in such a way as to infer that it is based on a report made by the witness as published in Vol. 8. It is not open to my learned brother to put in evidence a report of this kind. There is no foundation for it and I ask that it be stricken from the notes. Mr. Warren:—I asked the witness if he had made statements to Sir George Baden-Powell and he said he had. I asked him if the Commission had published the catch of the "Favourite" for 1887, in all probability the information came from him, and "he replied "Yes." I now refer him to the report of the Commissioner and ask him the question as above. Mr. Beique:—On referring to the affidavit that he made 4° we find that he made the affidavit above, but there is no reference at all to the catch of the "Favourite." The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It cannot do you any harm, Mr. Beique, to get the statement of Sir George Baden-Powell, unless it is in some way connected with the sworn testimony. Mr. Dickinson:—We submit that we would like our learned friends to give us the benefit of the rule that they have laid 50 down in this class of cases and the benefit of the rule under which they have cross-examined our witnesses. Mr. Beique:—We will try to do so, and try to govern ourselves by the rules as laid down for everybody. Cross-examination continued by Mr. Warren: Q.—Have you answered the question yet, whether the total catch is there stated to be 1887? A.—My total coast catch was 1887. I might have shot two or three seals on the way 60 home. Q.—It says there, the total catch of the year is 1887, does it not? A.—I took charge of the "Favourite" on the 28th of May. I can't answer the question, because I was not in her on the coast. I took charge of the vessel on the 18th of May and I went straight to Behring Sea with her. Q.—You made the statement: "The 'Favourite' for that year took 630 on the coast and 1,257 in the Sea, and 1887 was the total catch of the year?" A.—No, sir. IO 20 30 40 60 /34 (Laughlin McLean—Cross.) Q.—Then if Sir George Baden-Powell published that, it did not come from you? A.—I don't know what she got on the coast because I was not in the v; ssel. Q.—Do you know what she got in the Sea? A.—1884. Q.—If the published statement that she got 1,257 in the Sea, that information did not come from you? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did any one else have a copy of the log of the "Favourite" for 1887 in the Sea except you? A.—Not that I remember. Q.—Then where would Sir George Baden-Powell get that statement if he did not get it from you? A.—I don't think Sir George Bade-n-Powell ever asked me for a statement that I remember of. Q.—Did his colleagues or associates? A.—I generally make my reports to the Custom House of my catch of seals, but I don't remember of ever making a statement to Sir George Baden-Powell. Q.—Did anyone else have this log that you have read from the time that it was written until May? A.—I shipped it to Major Alexander in Behring Sea; one day he asked for it and I shipped it to him. Q,—Did you ship it to Mr. Milne? A.—I don't think I did. Q.—Then Mi'. Mexander, so far as yon know, is the only one who has seen the log of the "Favourite" for the purpose of using the information tli-rein coniiiiied since the log was written until this time? A.—I didn't show it to him to make use of it, he just merely wanted to see it. Q.—Did you show Mr. Alexander any log of the "Favourite" for any years? A.—I showed him this book here (indicating.) Q.—For the purpose of letting him use it? A.—He told me he wanted to see it, and I let him look at it.* Q.—Have you a log of the "Favourite" for the year 1888? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—For the year 1886? A.—I was not in the "Favourite" in 1886. Q.—You did not have a log in that year? A.—I don't think I did. Q.—Have yon any record of the "Favourite" in 1886? A.— There is a record of the catch for a part of the time. Q.—Where did you get it? A.—In a book that I found aboard. Q.—Have you that book with you? A.—I don't know where it is now. In 1887 I saw that book last. Q.—Well now ,witness, did you not show that book to Mr. Alexander in Behring Sea in 1894? A.—That is not this book here. Q.—Let us s'".' what you showed Mr. Alexander about the "Favourite" in 1886. Referring to this memorandum book, which is marked "Favourite's" log from 1888 to 1895 inclusive, partiroiarly to page eight, which contains positions of catches of seals in Behring Sea for the schconer "Favourite," season of 1886 and 1887, I will ask you if you claim to have kept that log yourself originally for 1886? A.—No, sir. Q.—What did you copy it from? A.—I did not copy it at all. Q.—Whose writing is il? A.—Mr. Charles Spring's. Q.—And you do not know-anything about the correctness of that? A.—I can't say as I do. Q.—And you showed that copy to Mr. Alexander in the year 1894? A.—He cswie aboard and left a book of his on the table and asked if he could see it. Q.—And the report of Mr. Alexander containing the log of the "Favourite" in 1886 bearing over it the name of McLean, (Laughlin McLean—Cross.) he got that information from you? A.—He did not get it from me. Q.—Did not you show him that copy? A.—I did not show him the copy. Q.—He saw it whether you showed it to him or not ? A.— He saw it, he looked at the book. Q.—Did you not say a moment ago you found a copy of the jo log of the "Favourite" in 1886, or a portion of the log aboard the "Favourite?" A.—I remember of seeing it some time in 1887. Q.—To whom did you deliver it? A.—I elid not deliver it to anybody. Q.—Into whose possession did it finally get? A.—I cannot tell you. Q.—How did Mr. Spring get that? A.—Mr. Spring copied that aboard my vessel. And the book was there that that was copied from, and it might be there yet for all I know. 20 Q.—Where is the "Favourite?" A.—In the harbour at Victoria. Q.—If it is there will you produce if? A.—If it is there. Q.—You own the "Favourite" now do you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You have possession of that book, have you not, and can produce it if it is there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I believe you went into the Sea in 1887 on the 10th of July? A.—On the 8th, I believe we went into Behring Sea. Q.—And your last lowering day was on the 27th, was it? 30 A.—27th. Q.—And the dates that you have given in the year 1887 are each of them lowering days, is that true? A.—All that I read of. Q.—You lowered the last day in that year on the 26th of August, I think? A.—27th, I think. Q.—Just refer to your book in answering that? A.—(Examining) 26th. Q.—Why did you leave the 26th? A.—I had run short of water and the weather was bad. Q.—It was more on account of the weather than because you were short of water? A.—I could not go home if I stopped much longer without calling at some port. Q.—Did you stop for water? A.—No, sir, I got right home; but if I had remained much longer in the Sea I would have been obliged to get it somewhere. Q.—But you got no water at Ounalaska on the way down? A.—I did not, no. If I got in I would not get out. Q.—What pass did you go through? A.—Unimak. Q.—You do not mean to say that there were any days after the 26th that you could have lowered? A.—Yes, generally get some fine weather after that. Q.—You do not know anything about it; you were not there, were you? A.—Not that year. Q.—In fact the weather was bad on the 27th? A.—On the 27th it was blowing hard. Q.—And you came out? A.—I came out. Q-—Did you not come out because you had a favorable northwest wind? A.—Not ,-it all, I did not come out of the 60 Sea until the 23rd of September. Q.—What were you doing in the meantime? A.—Trying to get out. Q.—Dodging the Cutters? A.—Part of the time. Q.—Where were you on the 26th, relative to the Island? A.—Southwest. Q-—How far from Unimak Pas? A,—Down close to Bogosloff, 40 So 736" (Laughlin McLean—Cross.) Q.—How many men did you have in the boat that year? A.—Three men. Q.—White men? A.—All white men. Q.—How large a crew did you have altogether? A.— Twenty-one. Q.—Is it an advantage to have three men in a boat as against two men in a boat? A.—"You cannot work a large boat with two men to any advantage. Q.—Will three men in a boat get better results than two men in a boat? A.—I don't know, with a smaller boat I think two men would be just as good. Q.—Do you know of white hunters going out two men in a boat? A.—Yes, sir, I have known some to go. Q.—When? A.—Well, I think it was in 1888 or 1889, the "Molly Adams," now the "E. B. Marvin," had 12 boats, two men in a boat. Q.—That was an experiment, was it not, to see if she 20 could carry a large number of boats? A.—It might have bee'n. Q.—-Do you know any other vessels? A.—The "Sapphire" at Vidoria. Q.—Do you know of any other instance? ■ A.—No, I don't think I do. Q.—Those are exceptions, are they not? A.—They are the only two that I know of. Q.—Now if two men in a boat accomplish just as much as three men in a boat and they could use smaller boats, and 3° the smaller boats cost less, why did they not do it? A.—1 always had three men in a boat. I only had white hunters one year altogether. Q.—Did they have guns in 1887? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many guns in a boat? A.—One; some of the hunters bad two, and some owned guns of their own and took two in a boat. Q.—The 3rear 1888 I believe you had Indians? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That was the year you have detailed the catch here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In the year 1889 you lowered your boats the last day on the 25th of August, is that so? A.—Yes, sir, the 25th of August. Q.—Did you run short of water that year? A.—I don't know what called me in that year.. Q.—Was it water? A.—No, sir, there was vessels with big catches after I left. I have forgot what took me out of the Sea so early. So Q-—You were not afraid of being seized in 1889, were vou? A.—A little bit. Q.—Then you left on that account? A.—No, I did not eave exactly on that account. Q.—You did not leave because it was bad weather, and do not know why you did leave? A.—Perhaps I wanted to go home. Q.—What is your best recollection about it? A.—I think I did want to . Q.—The fact is the sealing was about over? A.—No, dr. 6° Q.—Why did 3'ou leave? A.—I was very sorry I did leave: when the vessels came in with big catches afterwards. Q.—You left the Sea in that yipF on thjcipnd. of August did vou not'' A.—1889. the 25th. Q.—You lowered on the 25th. last? A.—We left the Sea' on the 29th. Q.—In 1889 3'ou said 3'our last sealing day was the 25th. of August; when did you leave- Ihe Sea? A.—On the 30th. day of August. Q.—What did 3"ou do with those Sve days between the time that you lowered the last, on the 25th., and the time you left the Sea? A.—It was thick weather. Q.—Now as you refresh your recollection, do you not think it was so thick weather that you could not seal? ing those five days it was not. Q.—You came out for that reason? A.—Not that reason. Q.—Did you see any break in the weather? was a break, the wind came from the southwest, a gale. Q.—You had Indians, I believe, that year, and 11 canoes? A.—I had 13 canoes. Q.—Referring to the weather for those last five days in August, 1889, you left on the 30th? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was it bad weather that day? A.—I don't recollect. Q.—Did you not say it was thick, and it broke on that day? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did I not ask you just now about the 30th? A.—The 30th. was the day I came out, the wind, it was to the westward and lifted the fog. Q.—Was it a stormy day. You were hove to a part of the day. I will read from your log, on the 30th day of August, where it says: "Very heavy wind, hove to under mainsail and jib 4 o'clock in the afternoon." Did I read correctly from the Log, page 129? A.—That is right, j Q.—Now will you look for a few days preceding the 30th. and a few days after, and tell me if it was stormy weather A.—It was not dress of weather that took me out because I had been 10 days in the Sea when I could not lower a boat. Q.—And the weather was very uncertain in 1886 and 1887 was it not? A.—No, 1886 was an extraordinary fine season. Q.—And 1887 was fine I suppose? A.—A good deal of fog.. Q.—And 1889? A.—Take it all through,, it was not a bad season. Q.—Have you got any claim before this Commisison? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know that the weather of 1886 and 1887 and 1889 is a matter of importance here? A.—1887 there was a good deal of fog; 1889 was not bad. Q.—You have worked for Mr. Spring have y.ou not? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—You arc connected with Mr. Spring in budness now, are you not, in a way? A.—No, sir. Q.—When did you break your connection with Mr. Spring? A.—In the spring of 1893. Book containing memorandum of "Favourite's" sealing catch, 1887-1895 marked No. 5 for identification. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:- a book used in examination. Q.—Referring to page eight of that book which has just been marked for identification as number five, I will ask you if the figures and the writing in the first column and the left of that page are not In your handwriting? A,—No, sir. Q.—And all the writing on that page is in the handwriting of Mr. Charles Spring? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Mr. Spring was not aboard the "Favourite" in 1886 in Behring Sea was he? A.—I cannot tell you. Q.—He did not seal on her regularly? A.—Not always Q.—He was not on her in 1886; was he in Behring Sea? A.—I could not tell, I didn't know the sealing business then. Q.—Do you not know that Capt. Alexander McLean had her in 1886. The Commissioner on the says he does not know, and 47 part of the that ends it. States to 738 (Laughlin McLean—Cross.) Q.—Is the memorandum in reference to the "Favourite" in 1889 running through this book in your handwriting? A.— From page 98 to the middle of page 134, it is in the handwriting of the mate. Q.—Did you keep the log that year, or the mate? A.— He kept both this one and the original log. Q.—Now, when you were giving your testimony, this was the memorandum book to which you referred, was it not, the one for 1889? A.—That is the one; yes. Q.—Now, this is not kept by you at all in your writing? A.—No, it is not in my writing. q.—it was not kept by you? A.—No, it was not kept by me. q.—And the original log kept that year was not kept by you? A.—It was not kept by me either Q.—Who was the mate that year? A.—His name was Mr. Turner. 20 Q.—Is he in Victoria? A.—I cannot tell you, I am sure. Q.—When was he last in Victoria, do- you know? A.—I don't think he has been here for five or six years- Q.—And this was the memorandum book which you used in your direct testimony to refresh your recollection? A.— It is. Q.—Could you have given the catch of the "Favourite" for 1889 without referring to this book? A.—I can. Q.—Where did you get this information from? A.—From my own. 3° Q.—Where did you get your own from? A.—Out of my own book. Q.—So that when you gave your testimony you gave it upon information derived from that book which has been ieltmtified? A.—I got it from this book. Q.—Did you get it from this book that has been marked? A.—That is a copy of this one. The Commissioner on the part of the I'nited States:—Mr. Witness, which book was it you had before you from which 40 you testified, the book that has been identified by the secretary, or the book you have got in your hand? A.—This is the book, 1889 and 1890; that for 18871 picked out of that book; 1889 and 1890 I took out of this book (small book in hands of witness). Q.—1887 and 1889 were all taken out of that, and by that you mean the memorandum book which has been identified here in your examination? A.—That is the one. Q.—Now in 1887 and 1888 the book you have given your in- 50 formation from is the memorandum— A.—No, sir, not in 1887 and 1888. Q.—The writing in this book which has been marked for identification as number 5 relating to the sealing voyage of the "Favourite" for 1888 is in the handwriting of the mate, is it not? A.—Not for 1888, it is the handwriting of Mr. Spring. Q.—And for 1887 in whose handwriting is it? A.—In 1887 it is Mr. Spring's also. Q.—Now when you testified relative to the catches of .1887 60 and 1888, did you obtain your information from the entries made in this memorandum book which has been marked as number 5 for identification, and which is not in your handwriting? A.—For 1887 and 1888. I have got another book for 1887 that is not here. Q.—But to-day could you have given it without this book? A.—The number of seals? Q.—Yes. A.—Yes, I could, ?o Q.—And for 1888 the without that book. Q.—And you could have given 1887 day by day without this book? A.—No, sir. Q.—Now let us see the memorandum book as to which you say you referred, to give your testimony about 1889 and 1890 ? A.—1889 was taken out of that in the mate's handwriting, io and 1890 is my own handwriting. Q.—Is this last memorandum book which I have shown you and which is not marked for identification, merely a copy of the one marked No. 5 for identification, so far as the years 1889 and 1890 are concerned? A.—All except 1890. Q.—But 1889 is copied from that book? A.—It is copied, but it is in my handwriting. Q.—Now without this little book which is not marked, could you have given 3'our testimony about the years 1889 and 1890? A.—I could tell you the total catches.' Q.—But you could not detail them? A.—Not day by day. Q.—And that was based entirely upon the information contained in the book which has been marked as number 5? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—And this little book here is copied from number 5 so that that does not enter'into it at all? A.—It is. Q-—This last memorandum book which we have been talking about does not contain an entrv which was made in the years 1889 and 1890, does it? A.—I could give the daily catches— Q.—Can you answer that question whether those figures were written in there in 1889 or 1890? A.—No, sir. (The last book referred to, marked number six for identification.) Q.—This book which has been marked for indentification number six, above referred to, I will ask you if it is the book which you stated a moment ago you got your information from in regard to the years 1889 and 1890? A.—This book? Q.—What was that book you had in your hand witness? A.—That is what I call the sealing book. Q.—The sealing book for what? A.—1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893, and I think 1894. Q.—The years 1889 and 1890 are the only ones we are concerned in. Show me the pages containing the memoranda relating to those two years. Mr. Spring made the most of those entries in the book from which you have been tedifying did he not? A.—All of the season of 1888 in Behring Sea. Q.—Did Mr. Spring give you that book, has it been in your possession right along? A.—It has been in my possession right along. Q.—And Mr. Spring is largely interested in a number of these claims before the Commission, is he not? A.—I don't know. Q.—You don't know? A.—I have heard he was. Q.—You have stated that you sealed to the westward of the islands, the Pribyloff Islands, in one year, and did not seal Go to the eastward? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You sealed in every direction from the islands did you not at various times? A.—Sometimes. Never to the eastward; I never sealed to the eastward of the islands. Q.—Do you know what seals feed upon? A.—I cannot tell; various things. Q.—Have you not found food in their domachs when they were opened? A.—I have at times. 40 50 74Q (Laughlin McLean—Cross.) Q.—It is fish is it not? A.—Fish and worms of all kinds. Q.—And they follow their feed into the sea do they not? A.—I suppose they do. Q.—And their feed moves from place to place? A.—That I cannot tell you. Q.—Are there banks of fish in Behring Sea that are per- . manent? A.—There are banks marked on the charts that IO are permanent, sand banks. Q.—Are there banks of fish that are permanent in Behring Sea? A.—Not that I know of. Q.—When yon come to look for seals you do not look for any particular position on the chart do 3'ou? A.—Well, we get around the edge of the bank. Q.—Are there always fish around these sand-banks? A.— I never tried to fish there; we see fish at times jumping in the water. Q.—Does the weather have anything to do with the num- 20 ber of seals that a boat will take in a season? A.—A good deal; it has nearly all to do with it. Q.—And the skill of the hunters has something to do with it? A.—Yes, it has something to do with it. Q.—A good deal to do with it, has it not? A.—It has not got so much to do with it as the weather. Q.—In 1889, Captain McLean, were you acquainted with the sealing fleet that went out of the harbour of Victoria? A.— I know pretty nearly all of them. Q.—And with the catch of the vessels? A.—No, I could 3° not tell you the catches. q,—Was the "Mary Taylor" out of this port in 1889? A.— I think she was. Q.__The "Theresa?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "Annie C. Moore?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "Lillie?" A.—I don't know whether the "Lillie" was. She was lost in 1889 or 1890, I think. Q.—Well, if her name was in the Cudom's House reports in 1889 it was probably since? A.—She had been lost since. Q Q.—And the "Penelope?' A.—Yes, she was out. Q.—And the other "Lillie," was she out in 1889? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—The "Sapphire?" A.—The "Sapphire." Q.—The "Aurora?" A.—Yes. sir. Q.—The "Juanita?" A.-S'think so. Q.—The "Ariel?" A.—I think so. Q.—The "Kate?" A.—The "Kate" was. Q._The "Favourite," of course. The "Maggie Mac?" A. Yes. So Q.—"W. P. Sayward?" A.—Yes. Q.—The "Minnie"? A.—Yes. Q.—"Mountain Chief"? A.—Could not say. Q.—"Wanderer"? A.—Yes. Q.—"Black Diamond"? A.—Yes. Q.—"Beatrice"? A.—Yes. Q.—The "Winnifred"? A.—Yes. Q.—The "Sierra"? A.—I could not say. Mr. Bodwell:—Is it a question as to whether these were in 60 the Sea. Mr. Warren:—No, cleared from Victoria. Q.—The most of those vessels went into Behring Sea that year, did they not? A.—I could not say. Q.—You do not know whether they did or not? A.—After I left Victoria I ma3r not see them until I come back. Q.—Do you know the vessels that cleared from San Francisco or American ports in 1889? A.—I do not, 74i io 20 30 40 SO 60 (Laughlin McLean—Cross.) Q.—There were a number of them? A.—I could not tell you how many. Q.—There was a number, was there not? A.—I could not tell of one. Q.—Can you tell the catches in that year 1889, except your own? A.—I think I can tell the "W. P. Say ward's" catch; it was somewhere about 2,600; I won't be positive. Q.—Was Captain Spring out on the "Favourite" in 1887? A.—No, sir. Q.—In 1888?? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Captain Spring was with you in 1888? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Charles Spring? A.—Charles Spring. Q.—What was he doing about the boat? A.—He went out on a pleasure trip. Q.—You mean to say that Captain Spring went up on your boat in 1888 for a short trip, and still you did not know that he was interested in these claims here? A.—I do not question his object in going up, that was his business. I was working for Charley Spring, and he was owner of the ship at the time. Q.—Did he hunt? A.—Sometimes. Q.—You had very good hunters in 1887, had you not? A. —Not very good. Q.—Anything unusual about their skill? A.—They were all new men, they did not know very much about it. Q.—How many years had Hughing been out, or was that his first trip? A.—That was his first trip to Behring Sea to my knowledge. Q.—He had been out on the coast before and had had considerable experience? A.—He was in the "Favourite" on the coast that same year. Q.—Had he been out before that? A.—I could not tell you, it was the first year that I know of. Q.—George Dishow was on the "Favourite" in 1887, was he? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was he a new man? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—First year out? A.—First year in Behring Sea, I think, he was out on the coast before, I couldn't say, I thfnk it was the first year. Q.—They used both spears and guns in 1888? A.—Yes, sir, both spears and guns. Q.—1889? A.—Yes, sir, the same. Q.—They had better guns in 1889 than in 1888? A.—In 1889 they had some breech-loading guns and some muzzle- loading guns. Q.—About the seals that you killed. You have embraced in your testimony as to your catch of seals, the total number? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You have embraced hair seals in your total, have you not? A.—No, sir. Q.—No hair seals? A.—No, sir. Q.—What do you call wigs? A.—Wigs are a seal. Q.—What is a wig? A.—It is a male seal, a very large one. Q.—Did you embrace wigs? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—Are they good fur? A.—It is all good except around the head and neck. Q.—They are not quite as large as the long or extra long? A.—They are extra large. Q-—Are they as good fur, and do they demand as high a price as what you call the extra long?' A.—They demand just as good a price. Q-—And what is the extra long seal? A.-—Extra large? 742 10 (Laughlin McLean—Cross.) Q.—Yes, extra large? A.—That is the largest size without counting them in as a wig. Q.—Now the wigs and extra large bring about the same price, do they not? A.—Yes. Q.—They bring the highest price for fur seals? A.—Not at all times; some years they do in London, and sometimes not. Q.—You have the wig extra large, and large; what do you call the large seal? A.—Well, the large seal. Q.—That is the designation is it? A.—It is a little above the medium in size. Q.—Between that and the very large? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Then you have the medium and the middling? A.— The middling is between the medium and the large. Q.—What is the medium? A.—It is between a pup and a little larger than that one. Q.—Now will you give me the land of pups among seals that 20 you catch? A.—The brown pup, the grey pup, and the black pup. Q.—Three kinds of pups. Is their fur worth as much as large seals? A.—No, sir; the brown pup is worth considerable. Q.—They are worth a great deal less are they not, for one reason, because there is less hide? A.—The brown is good fur but it is small. Q.—Now, in your catch of seals that you have given, have you included all the pups that you caught? A.—Yes. Q.—The grey, brown and black, are in your total catch? A.—We never get any black; what we call black pups are on shore; I have seen them in the water. Q.—But if you got any black pups you have included them, have you not? A.—No, T would not take them. Q.—Are you positive about that? A —Yes, sir. Q.—You took the grey pups and the brown ones? A.— Brown, yes. Q.—You have included those in the total catch you have given? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You have included the wigs, large, extra large, medium, and middling? A.—Yes. Q.—And the small, that is another designation is it not? A.—Small. Q.—A small seal, a wig, an extra large, large, medium, and middling, besides the pups? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you have included all of those in the total catches, have you not? A.—Yes, sir. r "medium" in the classiflca- 30 40 So 60 Sir C. H. Tupper:—Did he say tion? Mr. Dickinson:—Yes, meeKim. (To witness.) You are quite sure you did not embrace hair seals when you took them in your total catches? A.—No, we did not pay the hunters for them. Q.—You have given your testimony to-day as to the total catches of seals? A.—Not that I am aware of. Q.—As my learned friend says, will you swear that you have not included hair seals in your total catch? A.—No, sir. Sir C. H. Tupper:—That is your own phrase, and not mine. I disown it. Mr. Dickinson:—I hear it here every day. Your phrase is: "Will you say it. on your oath?" but I prefer to say (to witness:) Will you swear that you do not embrace hair seals in 37our total catches? A.—I did swear it to the best of my knowledge. 30 (Lauglin McLean—Cross—Re-di rect.) Q.—Will you swear that you did not embrace hair seals? A.—My mate has nothing to do with it. Q.—But he kept your log and your catch? A.—I counted the seals and not the mate, I told him the number of seals that came on board, and he entered that in his log. I counted the seals when they came over the rail. Q.—You swear that no hair seals were ever included? A.— No, sir. Q.—But the pups always were? A.—The pups. Q.—Will you swear that black pups were not taken and included? A.—No, sir. Q.—You could not swear to that? A.—No, sir. Q.—You swear that no black pups were included? A.—No black pups. Q.—But grey and brown pups were? A.—Yes, grey and brown. Q.—And medium, and middling, and small seals were in- 20 eluded with the wigs and extra large seals and large seals in your total catches? A.—All included with the exception of the black pups. Re-direct examination by Mr. Beique: Q.—Do you remember if you took any hair seals in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir, I have taken one or two. Q.—Not more than two? A.—I would not be positive; but anyhow they would be very few. Q.—There are very few in Behring Sea, I understand? A. —Very few. Q.—Did you take any grey pups in Behring Sea? A.—I might have taken one or two perhaps since I have been going out there. Q.—They are very few in Behring Sea also? A.—Very few, we got some of them on the coast. Q.—Very few of them are found in Behring Sea? A.— Very few, I might have caught one. Q.—Had you any quantity of the other pups? A.—No, not many sir. Q.—How were the skins sold as a rule. Did you sell any skins in these years, or do you know what the sales of the skins were that were caught in 1887, 1888 or 1889? A.—No, sir. Q.—It did not come within your department? A.—No, sir. Q.—You had nothing to do with the sales? A.—I had nothing to do with them. Q.—You have spoken as to the price or value of the "wigs;" 50 have you any personal knowledge as to this. Had you occasion to sell them yourself? A.—I did last year. Q.—And it is from that knowledge you have spoken? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—And only of last year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you say what part of the book marked No. 5 for identification is in your handwriting? A.—From page 152, dated April, 1890, to page 179. Q.—And part of the subsequent entries in 1891 are in your handwriting also? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Most of it is in your handwriting? A.—Yes, sir. i The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—What dates does the book include? Mr. Beique:—It is from 1887 to 1895. Q.—The entries previous to page 152 are partly in the handwriting of Mr. Spring? A.—Yes, sir, partly in the handwriting of Mr. Spring. 40 60 744 (Laughlin McLean—Redirect.) Q.—And partly in the handwriting of who else? A.—Mr. Turner, the mate. Y.—Has the book remained in your possession from year to year, up to this time? A.—Yes, sir, since I joined the ship. Q.—It is the ship's log, is it? A.—No, sir. Q.—Who kept the ship's log? A.—The mate. Q.—Was any entry made in the ship's log book of the num- 10 ber of seals taken daily? A.—I cannot say, not in all of the books, because they had different mates. It is very seldom T look over their log. Q.—Do you know where the ship's log books are for the various years? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where are they? A.—They are on board the ship. Q.—Will you bring them here when you come back? A.— Yes,' sir. Q.—How were all the entries made in this book marked "No. 5 for identification?" Were they made from day to day, 20 or only at different times? A.—Every day. Mr. Warren:—What year do you mean, Mr. Beique, in 1887, 1888 or 1889? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— There must be some misunderstanding about that, perhaps your question is not quite what you intended. By Mr. Beique: 30 Q-—Which part of the entries were made from day to day in this book marked "No. 5 for identification"? A.—Eve'ry day's work is entered, and is generally worked out in the evening, to-morrow's work is worked out day after day right along until the end of the season. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you mean that this particular book was kept that way? The Witness:—All the books. 40 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—But he is asking about this particular book? The Witness-—This book was kept the same way. Mr. Beique:—This book was kept from day to day. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is that the original book kept on board the ship, and entered from day to day, or is it a book copied from such a book? r0 The Witness:—This is a book kept on board, and worked out from day to day. Mr. Warren:—May the Court please, there is a misunderstanding about that because part of it is copied from other books. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You testifv that part of it was kept and part copied from the log of 1886. go By Mr. Beique: Q.—Does this apply to the entries made by Mr. Spring, and which are also in this book? A.—That was copied some time in, I think, 1887 or 1888. Q.—Indicate what page. A.—Page 8. Q—It was copied some time in 1887 or 1888? A.—Yes, but I would not be positive as to the pf^pR Q.—It was either in 1887 or 1888? A.—It might be the year Mr. Spring was with the boat. Q—Will you look at pages 5, 6 and 7. Were they copied? A.—Some of this is in Mr. Spring's handwriting, and there are some things in it that does not refer to sealing at all; it is not in my handwriting. Q.—You cannot speak as to these pages? A.—I cannot speak for them. Q.—Then the book proper begins at page 10 when the sealing voyage begins? A.—Yes, I can undertake to say from there. Q.—Is it on page 10? A.—Yes, page 10. This is a kind of inventory here, and I do not know anything at all about it. I do not know when Mr. Spring wrote that down—that is pages 14, 15, 16 and 17. Pages 67 and 68, that is something referring to sealing too, but I do not know what it is. Pages 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96 and 97, is another inventory. Q.—What occasion had you to look at this book as it was kept in 1887, 1888, 1889 and 1890? A.—Well. I copied it into 20 that small memorandum book that I have here to save time and trouble, so that I could get at the dates quicker. Q.—You did not understand my question. I ask you, what occasion had you on the vessel of looking at this bopk as it was kept in 1887 and the following years? A.—I have always looked after this book, and I generally told them what to put in this book, and the state of the weather and my position. When I took the position at noon they were entered in this book and the mate works out his own position generally. 3 Q.—I want to know whether it was kept under your direction? A.—Under my direction. Q.—And supervision? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now as to the book marked "No. 6 for identification." When did you make entries in this book? A.—A few days ago. Q.—For what purpose? A.—So as I could get out dates quicker than by handling this large book. Q.—Now as to the other book which you have in your pos- 40 session, and to which you have referred; it refers only to 1889- 1890 and the following years, not to any previous years? A. —This part here refers to 1889, and this part refers to 1890 on the northern coast, but not in Behring Sea. Q.—Are the entries in your handwriting in this book mark- *ed "No. 6 for itentification" ? A.—Some of these are .in Mr. Spring's handwriting. Q.—Sign your name on the page on which your handwriting commences. A.—I have signed it. 50 Mr. Beique:—I desire to have this book marked "for identification." (The book was marked No. 7 for identification.) Q-—Also further on in 1891 and subsequent years there are some portions of it that are not in your handwriting? A. —Yes. Q-—Independently of this book, had you a recollection of the total number of seals that vou caught in Behring Sea9 60 A.—Yes, sir. Q.—From year to year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Does the number of canoes appear in the book No. 5 from year to year? A.—No, sir. Q.—The log book, I suppose, would show the number of canoes? A.—Not that log book, but the log book last year would. Q.—The ship's log book would show? A.—I think it will. 746 (Laughlin McLean—Re-direct—Re-cross—Re-direct.) Q.—I think once you mentioned 12 canoes in 1889, and 1 think also you have mentioned 11 canoes in 1889? A.—There were 11 canoes in 1889. Q—Was it 11 or 12? A.—11. • Q.—In 1888 what was the number? A.—In 1888 it was 13, but I had practically only the use of 12, for a man died on board on the way up and we were short a hand. I io had 13 canoes on board. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—Did you bring this book, No. 5, with you to-day? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—You have had it in your possession for almost a' week or ten days? A.—Not always. Q.—Where has it been? A.—It has been at Mr. BodwelPs for a while. Mr. Peters:—You may take it for granted with regard to all of these books, we have taken possession of all of them that we could get. Mr. ^Dickinson:—Oh, yes. The question did not refer to anything like that. 20 40 30 Re-direct examination of Laughlin McLean was continued Dec. 22, 1896, by Mr. Beique. Q.—Will you say what logs you now produce? A.—The logs for 1887, 1888, 1S89 and 1890. Q.—For what vessel? A.—For the "Favourite." Q.—Are they the ship's logs? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—By whom was this log kept for 1887? A.—It was kept by myself. Q.—Did you enter, in the ship's log for 1887, the seals as they were caught? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you keep any other book in which you kept the daily catch? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you got that book here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you produce it? A.—It is filed in court. Q.—You kept this book marked "No. 11 for identification" from day to day. on the vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you prepare from that book marked, "No. 11, for identification," a statement of the daily catch- A.—Yes> sir* Q.—Will you give it to me please? A.—Yes, sir. It commences in June and is as follows: On June 8th, 7; on June 20th, 1; on July 5th, 4; on July 7th, 12; on July 8th, 12; on July 10th, 1; on July 11th, 25; on July 12th, 13; on July 13th. 54; on July 15th, 13; on July 16th, 41; on July 17th, 4fi; on July 18th, 68; on July 21st, 60; on July 22nd, 62; on July 23rd, 5; on July 24th, 19; on July 25th, 170; on July 26th, 9; on July 29th, 4; on July 31st, 4. On August 1st, 56; on August 2nd, 1; on August 3rd, 85; on August 4th, 29; on August 5th, 83; on August 6th, 105; on August 8th, 108; on August 9th. 1.09; 60 on August 10th, 2; on August 12th, 34; on August 14th, 1; on August 15th, 103; on August 17th, 10; on August 18th, 26; on August 19th, 147; on August 20th, 3; on August 22nd, 14; on August 23rd, 57; on Augud 24th, 16; on August 25th, 122; on August 26th, 140; on August 27th, 19. Q.—What is the total? A.—The total is 1,878. Q.—All got in Behring Sea? A.—No, sir, fourteen of them were caught outside of Behring Sea, there was 1,864 inside the Sea. So V. Q.—I suppose those 14 seals were caught before the days you mentioned? A.—Until July 8th, I entered Behring Sea on July 9th. Q.—What number of boats had you on the "Favourite" in 1887? A.—I had six regular hunting boats and a dern boat. Q.—I believe you said yesterday that the stern boat was not much used? A.—I think she got 42 seals altogether, the mate hunted in her. Q.—Did you have a white crew? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Two or three men in each boat ? A.—Three men in the regular hunting boats, and two in the stern boat. Q.—How many men altogether? A.—23 or 24 men. The Commissioners took recess at 1 o'clock. Examination of the witness Laughlin McLean, was continued in the afternoon of Dec. 22, at half-past two o'clock, by Mr. Beique. 30 40 5° 60 Re-direct examination continued by Mr. Beique: Q.—In 1887, I believe, the "Favourite went sealing on the coast before going to Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were in her on the coast? A.—No, sir. Q.—Now, in 1888, you went sealing both on the coast and in Behring Sea on the "Favourite?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you the ship's log book for 1888? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—By whom was it kept? A.—By the mate. Q.—What was his name? A.—Errington. Q.—Where is he? A.—He is in some part of England— South Shields—I think. Q.—Was the daily catch entered in the ship's log book? A. —Not in the ship's log. Q.—Was there another book in which the daily catch was kept? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you that book with you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you produce it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—By whom was that book kept? A.—By myself, most of it. Part of the catch is tallied up by Mr. Spring, the owner. Q.—He was on the vessel with you also that year? A.—He was on the vessel with me in 1888. Q.—What number of boats had you in 1888? A.—I had 11 canoes, and two boats in 1888. Q.—Was that the number you gave the other day in your examination? A.—No, sir. I made a mistake the other day —I think I said "13 canoes," while there was only 13 tn all. Q.—Do you verify from the book you kept at the time as to the number of boats? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What crew had you in 1888? A.—I had 22 Indians and eight white men, including mvself and the owner, 30 in all. Q.—I propose now to ask you to give the daily catch. I shall ask you afterwards which were your own entries, and which .were the entries of Mr. Spring. Will you give the daily catch on the coast first? A.—On the coast the daily catch was as follows: On April 4th, 13; on April 6th. 12: on April 8th, 2; on April 9th, 20; on April 12th, 25; on April 13th, 21; on April 16th, 32: on April ISfli, 13; on April 20th, 37; on April 21st, 7. mJSM 60 748 (Laughlin McLean—Re-direct.) On May 4th, 31; on May 5th, 32; on May 6th, 1; on May 12th, 2; on May 15th, 3; on May 16th, 38; on May 19th, 7; on May 20th, 5; on May 21st, 5. On June 10th, 14, on June 12th, 10; on June 14th, 36; on June 15th, 35; on June 16th, 12; on June 18th, 5; on June 19th, 19; on June 20th, 22; on June 24th, 36; on June 25th, 33; on June 26th, 5. On July 2nd, 2; on July 3rd, 2. Q.—That is all the coast catch? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many in all? A.—527 in all. Q.—Will you say now, which of these are from your own tally? A.—On June 15th, out of 35;'I tallied in 16,.on June 19th, out of 19, I tallied in 6; on June 25, out of 33 I tallied in 6; on June 26th 1 tallied in 5; on July 2nd Mr. Spring tallied. That's all I tallied on the coast. Q.—And the balance are Mr. Spring's entries? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now will you give the daily catch in Behring Sea in 1888? A.—On July 10th, 35; on July 11th, 2; on July 14th, 23; on July 15th, 78; on July 16th, 66; on July 17th, 41; on July 18, 25*; on July 19th, 77; on July 20th, 8; on July 21st, 1; on July 26th, 189; on July 27th, 87; on July 28th, 60; on July 29th, 1; and on July 31st, 1. On August 5th, 23; on August 8th, 137; on August 12th, 10; on August 13th, 84; on August 14th, 214; on August 19th, 2; on August 20th, 1; on August 21st, 57; on August 22nd, 62; on August 24th,'10; on August 25th, 64; on August 26th, 60, and on August 27th, 183. Q.—How many is that in all in Behring Sea? A.—1,601 in Behring Sea. Q.—Will you please state which were tallied in by Mr. Spring, of the catch in Behring Sea? A.—I tallied on 11th July; on the 15th July I tallied 23 out of 78, the balance of that day was tallied by Mr. Spring; on 18th of July I tallied 18 out of 25, and the balance was tallied by Mr. Spring; on 21st July Mr. Spring tallied; on the 19th August they were tallied by Mr. Spring, and on the 20th August they were tallied by Mr. Spring. Q.—The balance was tallied from your own entries made at the time in your sealing book? A.—Yes,- sir. Q.—You went to Behring Sea again in 1889 on the same vessel, did not you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you the ship's log book for 1889? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—By whom was it kept? A.—By the mate. Q.—The same mate as in 1888? A.—No, sir. Q.—Who was the mate then? A.—Mr. Turner. Q.—Is he in Victoria? A.—No, sir. Q.—Where is he? A.—He is drowned. Q.—Was the daily catch entered in the ship's log book? A.—Not in the ship's log. Q-—Did you keep a sealing book? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—From day to day? A.—Yes, sir, from day to day. Q.—Have you got that book here before you? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—Will you say what was the number of canoes you had in 1889? A.—Nine canoes and one boat. Q.—That was the sttrn boat? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I believe that is not the number you gave the other day? A.—No,. sir. Q.—You were giving it from memory the other day? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Did you ascertain from your book as to the number there were in that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was the stern boat much used in 1889? A.—She sometimes used in fine weather. was (Laughlin Me-be an—Re-direct.) Q.—Was it used to the same extent as the others? A.— No, sir. Q.—Were they white men or Indians in 1889? A.—I had Indian hunters in nine canoes—that would be 18 Indians— and seven white men, 25 in all. \ Q.—What were the white men used for? A.—Just work the vessel. io Q-—Please give us the coast catch for 1889? A.—Ii is as follows: On April 3rd, 55; on April 4th, 4; on April 9th. of); on April 18th, 19; on April 19th, 76; on April 25th, 2; on April 26th, 3; on April 30th, 22. On May 16th, 5 , 5; on May 17th, 30; on May 18th, 9; on May 25th, 46; on May 27th, 1; on May 29th, 22; on May 30th, 37. * On June 1st, 8; on June 22nd, 1; on June 2Srd On Julv 2nd, 2 ;on Julv 4th, 4. Q.—In all h m June 23rd, hundred and sev^n™*7 M ^ gf* °n ** COaSt? A-F™ 20 Q._These i y.—These are all from your own entries? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will j'ou give now the catch in the Behring Sea in the same year? A.—It is as follows: On July 15th, 11; on July 16tb, 42; on July 17th, 21: on July 18th, 39; em July 19th, 30; on July 21d, 14; on July 22nd, 12: on July 23rd, 7; on July 24th. nil; on -Inly 25th, 70; on July 2('th. 12; on July 28th, 3; on July 29th, 49; on July 301 h. 170, and on July 31st, 19. On August 1st, 18; on August 5th, 149; on August 6th, 105; on August 7th, 26; on August 9th, 64; on August 10th, III ; ^ on August llth, 28; on August 12th, 8; on August 14th. S'l; on August 15th, 65; on August 16th, 3; on August 18th, 7; em August 19th, 17; on August 20th, 1; on August 21st. 18; on August 22nd, 4; on Aueust 2Hth /LQ ugust 25th, 49. Q.—Making a total of how many in Behring Sea? A.— 1,296. Q.—Are these all from your owi book? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you classify o: 40 1889? A.—Yes, sir. rn entries in the sealing on the vessel the seals you caught in y.—*jan you ascertain as to whether you caught any grey pups in Behring Sea? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—Can ups in 1 AiYeJ1sir7Tcrg\rfnournd ^ ^^ *" ™ or B A. Q SO .—You caught four in the Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. .—Did you keep a record for 1888 as to grey pups also? -No, sir, not in this book. Q.—Well, now, did you go out sealing in 1890? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what vessel? A.—In the same vessel. Q.—You sealed both on the coast and in the Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—Have you the ship's log book for that 3rear? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—By whom was it kept? A.—It was kept by the mate. Q.—Who was he? A.—Mr. Murchison. Q.—Where is he? A.—He is on Vancouver Island, I think, at 1'uncan's Station. ^0 Q.—Was the daily catch entered in the ship's log book? A.—No, sir. Q.—There were a few entries weren't there? A.—There may have been, but I did not notice. Q.—Did you keep the sealing book? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In which you made your own entries rom day to day? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—Will you give us the coast catch for 1890? A.—Yes, sir; it is as follows: »_—i IO 750 (Laughlin McLean—Re-direct.) On April 15th, 57; on April 18th, 7; on April 19th, 21; on April 20th, 17; on April 22nd, 7; on April 23rd, 76; on April 24th, 108; on April 25th, 6; on April 26th, 11. On May 15th, 29; on May 17th, 10; on May 24th, 9; on May 25th, 24; on May 27th, 2. On June 1st, 3; on June 2nd, 2; on June 4th, 30; on June 5th, 57; on June 6th, 20; on June 8th, 180; on June 9th, 164; on June 10th, 127; on June 13th, 5; on June 15th, 97; on June 17th, 1; on June 18th, 1; on June 19th, 5; on June 20th, 23; on June 21st, 40; on June 22nd, 92, and on June 23rd, 20. Q.—What is the total on the coast? A.—1,305. Q.—Now give the total catch in Behring Sea. A.—On July 18th, 25; on July 19th, 15; on July 20th, 19; on July 21st, 45; on July 22nd, 40; on July 23rd, 83; on July 24th, 47; on July 25th, 49; on July 26th, 39. On August 2nd, 17; on August 3rd, 24; on August 4th, 16; on August 7th, 91; on August 9th, 47; on August 10th, 169; 20 on August 11th, 281; on August 12th, 28; on August 13th, 9; on August 14th, 63; on August 18th, 1, and on August 20th, 1. Q.—What is the total catch in Behring Sea? A.—1,110 in Behring Sea. Q.—Had you boats or canoes in 1890? A.—Canoes. Q-—How many had you? A.—13 of my own besides four I picked up. Q.—And you had a stern boat besides? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you have an Indian crew? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many men in all? A.—26 Indians and seven 30 white men. Q.—Including yourself? A.—Yes. Q.—You say that you picked up some canoes. How many did you pick up? A.—Four. Q.—When did you pick them up? A.—I think I picked them up on 10th August, the first day they worked on board of me was 11th August. Q.—How many days did they lower these four canoes? A. Four. Q.—Can you give their total catch separate from the oth- 40 ers? A.—About 64. Q.—It appears that your best lowering day was on the 18th July, 1890, in the Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you say when wou entered'Behring Sea that year? A.—On July 16. Q.—Will you sayS you found any log book on board the "Favourite"'for 1886? A.—Yes, I have a log book—memorandum — Mr. Dickinson: 53 What was it? -Yon said something about a memorandum. 60 The Witness:—It is not in a big book like the others; it is kept in a small book. Re-direct examination continued by Mr. Beique: Q.—Will you produce that book? A.—Yes, I produce it. Book marked "No. 12 for identification." Q.—By whom was it kept? A.—I do not know. Q.—You cannot swear as to the writing? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did this book, marked "No. 12 for identification," remain on the vessel ever since? A—Yes, sir. Q.—I should have asked you if you kept a record of the grey pups taken in 1890 in the Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q._Will you say whether you caught any grey pups in the Behring Sea in 1890? A.—No, sir. Q—You did not catch any? A.—No, sir. 20 (Laughlin McLean—Re-cross.] Re-cross-examination continued by Mr. Warren: Q.—I take it from your book, Captain McLean, that you did not lower in the Behring Sea on the 18th and 20th August, 1890, because 3'our report is* that you took one seal on each day? A.—No, sir, I do not think that I elid lower. Q.—The lad day you lowered in 1890 would be on 14th Augud? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In the year 1889 you lowered last on the 25th August? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In the year 1888 you lowered last on the 27th August? A.—Yes, sir, the last lowering was on the 27th August. Q-—Now, I underdand that on the present occasion you are testifying from books that are mainly in your own handwriting with the exception of the entries you have given as being made by Mr. Spring? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—You are not using the same books you had here the other day? A.—No, sir. Q-—You are positive that, with the exception of those entries made by Mr. Spring, all the others are in your handwriting? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In the year 1890, when you made that large catch of 281 seals on the 11th August, you had 17 canoes, I take it? A.—Yes, sir, 17 canoes. Q-—Are you able to state positively from your books as to whether, or not, any seals taken outside the Behring Sea on the way up, are included in these catches that you have given us as being in the Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I asked you the other day if you ever made a report to the British Commissioners over here seeking information as to your catch in Behring Sea for the year 1887 being 1,054— and you stated you had not? A.—No, sir. Q.—What was the tonnage of the "Favourite?" A.—80 tons. Q.—I suppose that a boat of the size of the "Favourite" can stay in the Sea a little longer than a boat of considerably smaller tonnage? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—It makes some difference, doesn't it? A.—Yes, it makes a difference. Q.—A little boat or a boat less than half the size of the "Favourite" might be bothered by a sea which the "Favourite" would stand? A.—Yes. Q.—And the latest day you ever lowered in Behring Sea was on 27th August? A.—Yes, I think it was. Q.—I am speaking now up to 1891, I do not refer to any date since that, and you answer, "yes," to my quedion? A. —Yes. Q.—Where did you get this book that has been marked "No. 12 for identification" that you brought up here to the court room? A.—I found it amongst the ship's books on board the "Favourite," when I took charge of the "Favourite" in 1887. Q.—Where did you bring it from just now? A.—From the "Favourite." Q.—When did you get it off the "Favourite" this lad time? A.—Two days ago. Q.—Since you were last on the stand? 6o urday. Q.—Since you were last on the stand? last on the stand. Q.—Did you find this book on board the you took charge of her in 1887? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—Is this the book Mr. Spring copied from when he made those figures in the book which you produced here the other day, and which was marked for identification as No. 5? A.— Yes, sir. 40 So A.—Yes, on Sat- A.—Since I was Favourite" when 752 (Laughlin McLean—Re-cross.) Q.—Where did Mr. Spring do that copying? A.—On board le "Favourite-'' Q.—Don't you know whose handwriting this book, marked "No. 12 for identification" is in? A.—No, sir, I can't tell you. Q.—You were asked if you had found a log book of the "Favourite" for 1886, and you do not mean to have the Commissioners think that this book which has been marked "No. 12 for identification" is the log book of the "Favourite" for 1886? A.—I do not know. Q.—You know what you stated about this being a memorandum book? A.—What I said was that it was not taken in the same kind of book as the ship's logs. Q—Do you think ! t is the log of the "Favourite" for 1886, or do you produce it with the intention of having the Commissioners believe that that was the log of the "Favourite", for 1886? A.—That is the only one that I could find for 20 1886. Q.—Do you think that that answers my question, witness? A.—That was the only book that I could see that had reference to 1886, and I brought it here, I don't know whether it is the log book or not. Q.—You do not claim that it is the log book of the "Favourite" for 1886? A.—I do not. Q.—Does it purport to be on its face the complete log book up to the end of the journey? A.—I never read it. Q.—Did you ever look at this book to find out the location 30 where seals had been taken by the "Favourite" in 1886? A.—No, sir, I might have looked in the book, but I never read it through. Q.—The entries in this book stop on the 31st July, 1886? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—And these figures in the margin on various pages are not in the same handwriting as the body of the book, are they? A.—No, sir. Q.—And they were written there by Mr. Spring, were they not? A.—I cannot say. 40 So 60 Q.—Are not these Mr. Spring's figures? A.—I cannot say. Q.—Are they yours? A.—No, sir. Q.—Who else has written in this book besides Mr. Spring or you, or has had the custody of it? A.—It might be Mr. Spring, but I did not see him do it. Q.—Do you know Mr. Spring's handwriting? A.—It looks very much like his figures. Q.—It looks very much like his figures, doesn't it? A,— Yes, sir. Q.—Just turn to the memorandum from which you read the other day contained in book marked "No. 5 for identifica- j||IL" and which you state Mr. Spring copied from the book found on board the "Favourite." I asked you if that memorandum which you read from the other day and which you said that Mr. Spring copied from the book on board the "Favourite" in 1887, does not take the log of the "Favourite" down to the 18th of August; look at it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you look at the book which you have just produced, and which is marked "No. 12 for identification," and tell me if there is any entry in that book after 31st July, 1886? A.—No, sir. Q.—You do not find any entries in that book that purport to have been made on any day after 31st July, 1886? A.— No, sir. Q-—Referring now to the book marked "No. 5 for identification," and particularly to page 8, which contains a copy, which you said was made by Mr. Spring, of the memorandum io ■ 753 (Laughlin McLean—Re-cross—Re-direct.) book found on the "Favourite" in 1887, will you tell me whether or not on that page there is any writing other than that made by Mr. Spring himself? A.—No, sir. Q.—Is there anywhere in this book marked No. 5 for identification any writing by the man that kept that book in 1886, which you produce here, and which is marked "No. 12 for identification?" A.—No. Q.—Do you know where Mr. Spring got the information upon which he based these figures after the 31st day of July, which are made in this book marked "No. 5 for identification," on page 5? A.—He got it out of another hook similar to the small book on the table there. Q.—Will you produce that book similar to the book marked "No. 12 for identification"? A.—I produce it. Mr. Warren:—The book which witness produces is marked 20 "No. 11 for identification." Q.—Will you turn to the page containing entries for the 18th, 19th and 20th of August, 1886, in this book marked "No. 11 for identification," and which you last produced, and reading from the entry of the date of August 18th, 1886, tell me the latitude and longitude of the "Favourite" for that day? A.—Latitude 55.12, longitude 165.40 W. Q.—Is that in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where did this book that has been marked "No. 11 for *° identification" come from? A.—From the schooner "Favourite. Q.—And all that you have said with regard to the cudody of this book marked "No. 12 for identification" applies equally to this book marked "No. 11 for identification"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I have here a book which was used by Mr. Peters, and from- which he read in examining the witness, Captain Alexander McLean, which purports to he the log of the "Favour- 4° ite" for 1886, and I ask you to turn to the entry under date 18th August, 1886, which is a similar date to the one I asked you to refer to in book marked "No. 11 for identification," and I ask you to tell me, whether or not the latitude and longitude there given in this book, marked <cNo. 13 for identification," corresponds with the latitude and longitude on the same day as in the book marked "No. 11 for identification"? A.—Yes, sir. 50 6o Re-direct examination by Mr. Beique: Q.—When you were asked as to the entries made by Mr. Spring on page 8 of. the book marked "No. 5 or identification" and not contained in book marked "No. 12 for identifie*ation," you were about giving an explanation when you were stopped. What was the explanation you wanted to give? A.— I said that there was a continuation of that book marked "No. 5 for identification" in the small book which I have since produced. Q.—You wanted to refer to the book marked "No. 11 for identification" as being a continuation of the book marked "No. 12 for identification"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And where all the entries for the month of August are to be found? A.—Yes, sir. I paid no particular attention to it, as to where Mr. Spring took the entries from, but I know the book marked "No. 11 for identification" is a continuation of the book marked "No. 12 for identification," 4,8 754 (Laughlin McLean—Be-direct—Re-cross. Wm. Cox—Direct.) Q.—Do you know in whose handwriting the entries under date of 18th, 19th and 20th August in the book marked "No. 11 for identification" are? A.—No, sir. q.—will you refer to the log book marked "No. 13 for identification," and purporting to be the log book of the "Favourite" for 1886 ,and say if you know in whose handwriting this book is? A.—No, sir, I cannot say. 0 Q.—In your experience did you find the weather at the end of August worse than the weather at the beginning of August, or in July ?A.—It generally is worse at the last part of August. Q.—Were you ever in a smaller vessel than the "Favourite" in Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—From your experience, would there be any danger or a smaller schooner than the "Favourite to remain in the Behring Sea until the end of August, and even to the beginning of September? A.—No, sir. 20 Re-cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—In this book marked "No. 11 for identification" there are entries made in your handwriting? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And after the year 1886? A.—After the year 1886. Q.—That is a memorandum taken on board the boat? A. —Yes, sir, in 1887. 30 The evidence of the following witness, William Cox, was taken for all the cases for 1887 and 1889, out of order by consent, and is here printed for convenience. William Cox was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and duty sworn, December 17, 1896. .0 Examined by Mr. Peters: Q.—Where do you live Captain Cox? A.—In Victoria at present. Q.—You have lived in Victoria for how long? A.—Since 1888. Q.—I believe 3'ou are a native of Nova Scotia? A.—Yes, sir, I was born in Nova Scotia. Q.—I believe you came around in the schooner "Sapphire?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what 3'ear? A.—We left in 1887. Q.—And you got here in 1888? A.—Yes, sir, in February, 1888. Q.—Were you mate of the "Sapphire?" A.—Yes, dr. Q.'—How long did it take you to come around in the "Sapphire?" A.—We left Halifax on 1st June and arrived here about the middle of February. Q.—What crew did it take to come around? A.—There was a captain and two mates. Q.—And how many able seamen? A.—Five, I think! 60 Q.—And the cook? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you know anything about sealing up to that time? A.—Nothing. Q.—Will 3rou be kind enough to tell me the tonnage of the "Sapphire?" A.—She was 123 tons registered tonnage. Q.—She was brought, around here for whom? A.—E. B. Marvin & Co. Q.—Did you go sealing in the "Sapphire" in 1888, 1889 and J890? A—I did, 5o 20 30 40 So 60 (Wm. Cox—Direct.) Q—In each of these years? A.—Each of these years. Q-—In 1888 you went in what capacity? A.—As mate. Q-—And in 1889 you went as captain? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the same in 1890? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—In 1888 did she carry white men or Indians? A.— Indians. Q.—How many canoes did she have? A.—I think she had nine in 1888. ■ Q.—You are now speaking from memory? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And how many men altogether? A.—There were 18 Indians, three 3ailors, the mate, the captain and the cook. Q.—Did she hunt that year with guns or spears? A.— Guns and spears Q.—Both? A.—Yes. Q.—Did she hunt with any boats besides the canoes? A. —Yes, sir, one—the stern boat. Q.—Was the stern boat used generally, or only occasionally? A.—Only occasionally. Q.—The bulk of your hunting that year was done by Indians in canoes? A.—In canoes, yes sir. Q.—Was the bulk of it done by guns or spears? A.—They used both. Q.—Did they, on all occasions, take out guns and spears? A.—Yes. Q.—So that they cemld use either if they thought fit? A. —Yes. Q.—I believe you kept the log of the "Sapphire" for 1888? A.—No. Q.—I want you to look at this book you now produce, marked on the back of it "Schooner 'Sapphire,' Skin Book, 1888. 1889 and 1890." A.—Yes, sir. Q.—For the year 1888 I want to ask you who kept the book? A.—Captain Petty. Q.—Was he captain of the vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were the. mate? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—Where is Captain Petty? A.—He is dead. Q.—Was this book also kept in the years 1889 and 1890?- A.—Yes. Q.—Who kept*that book during these years? A.—I kept it. Q.—Is it all in your handwriting? A.—It is all in my handwriting ? Q.—In 1889 and 1890? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And for 1888 it is all kept in Captain Petty's handwriting? A.—Yes. Q.—Does this book, for the year 1889, contain an acount for each hunter on board that ship, showing the amount of seals caught bv him, and the amount earned by him? A.— That is it. Q.—It shows that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was that the object for which the book was kept? A. —It was to keep their accounts. Q.—That was the object? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you tell me when the book was made up? A.— Either in the evening or in the morning. Q.—Was it made up from day to day? A.—Yes, from day to day. Q.—For each man? A.—Yes, for each man. Q.—1 will take one man, for instance, here is Charles Bishop, that is one man's name, and under that is an account, day by day, showing the number of seals he had caught, what he'was entitled to and credited for them? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Opposite that is the time you finally settled with him? A.—Yes. Q— Showing the settlement? A.—Yes. 756" (Wm. Cox—Direct.) Q.—These men hunted in pairs? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the account of the two men that hunted together was kept together in one account? A,—Yes. Q.-'-And separated when they came to the total? A.— Yes. Q.—The hunter got a dollar and the steerer got a dollar; there were two dollars for each skin—one to the hunter, and the other to the steerer? A.—Yes. Q.—Was that payment made irrespective of the size or skin of the seal? A.—Everything. Q.—Did you catch, in the Behring Sea, any quantity of what are called "grey pups?" A.—I do not remember ever catching any grey pups. Q.—As a matter of fact they are not caught there? A.— They are rare. Q'.—Now, this book, as you say, contains the account of each man separately? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you lately gone through that book, and from it taken a statement showing the amount of seals caught per day in the year 1889? A.—I did, yes. Q.—When did you start on the sealing trip in 1889? A.— About the 1st January. Q.—We will leave alone altogether your South Coad catch. Did you go to Befiring Sea? A.—I did, yes. Q.—About when did you begin fishing in Behring Sea? A. —It began on July 4th, it was then, I think, I entered the Sea. Q.—And you fished until when? A.—Until the last day of- July. Q.—You then left? A.—Yes. Q.—Why? A.—I was afraid of being seized. Q.—You left on account of fear of seizure? A.—1 heard tell of the seizures and left. Q.—You have made up this datement from this book carefully? A.—Carefully. Q.—Can you give me from day to day the number of seals caught in the month of July by your ship? Give me the date first, and then the number of seals. A.—It is as fol- 4° lows: On July 5th we caught 1; on July 6th, 2; 1m July 8th, 9; on July 9th, 85; on July 10th, 37; on July 11th, 148; on July 12th, 46; on July 13th, 49; on July 14th, 63; on July 15th, 62; on July 18th, 45; on July 19th, 111; on July 21d, 15; on July 22nd, 101; on July 23rd, 9; on July 24th, 285; on July 25th, 195; on July 26th, 62; on July 28th, 24; on July 29th, 114; and on July 30th, 178. Q.—Making the total what? A.—1,641, I think. Q.—And then you left and hunted no more in August? 5° A.-Yes. Q.—That is the total catch in Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—Is that the correct amount, or is there some little difference? A.—I think there should be a few differences. Q.—As a matter of fact, does the difference amount to anything at all, or is it a mere trifle? A.—There is about 15 seals difference. Q.—You are not exactly sure which it ought to be? A.— No. Q.—Will you explain to the court why you are not sure on that point; just take an example there, and show us what you mean? A.—There are some days the men changed off, a man might get sick and another man would take his place in the boat. Q.—And that would make a difference in the account? A, —I have made a mistake in picking them out, (Wm. Cox- Q.—And that happened on several occasions, as shown in the book? A.-*-Yes, sir. Q.—Do you mean to say that every one of these days were lowering days, and that they lowered the boats with the exception of the first two? A.—I cannot say whether the boats were lowered all these days or not. Q.—You might get seals, of course, without lowering the boats? A.—Yes, for these two days the seals might have been shot from the vessel. Q.—That is with regard to the year 1889; now with regard to the year 1890. Did you yourself also personally keep this book? A.—I did. Q.—And the entries are in your handwriting? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you taken off the number of seals caught day by day by the "Sapphire"? A.—I have. Q.—Will vou be kind enough to give them to me? A.— Yes. Q.—This is for Behring Sea alone, is it? A.—For Behring Sea alone. Q.—Now give me the date and number of seals you caught? A.—On July 15th we caught 63; on July 16th, 2; on July 17th, 3; on July 18th, 21; on July 19th, 38; on July 20th, 48; on July 21st, 3; on July 22nd, 15; on July 23rd, 5; on July 25th, 49; on July 26th, 40; on July 28th, 18; and on July 29th, 6. Q.—Now give us the catch for the month of August? A.—■ On August 3rd we caught 8; on August 4th, 7; on August 6th, 65, I think, but there is a blot here; on August 7th, 17; on August 8th, 22; on August 9th, 73; on August 10th, 162; on August 11th, 37; on August 13th, 1, and on August 15th, 6. Q.—What is the total? A.—742. Q.—That is up to what date? A.—Up to the 15th August. Q.—Why did you leave on 15h August? A.—The Indians would not work any longer. Q.—And you left on 15th August? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many canoes had you in that year, 1890? A.—I had 17 canoes and two boats. Q.—And were you using guns or spears? A.—They had both guns and spears. Q.—And the Indians mutinied and would not work? A. —They would not work. Q.—What was the matter with the Indians? A.—They want' d to go home. Q.—Did you have to go home? A.—Yes. Q.—Was there any talk of seizure in 1890? A.—No. Q.—So that you left the Behring Sea on 15th August? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—What was the weather like that year for fishing where you were? A.—It was bad weather in July and August—a bad season. Q.—In addition to the information you have given us, does that little book show the position where you caught these seals—I mean that list you have in your hand? A.—It is copied from the log book. Q.—You have the log book of the "Sapphire" for 1889 and 1890? A.—Yes. Q-—Will you be kind enough to tell us who kept the log books? A.—The mates kept the log books. Q.—Were they kept under your supervision? A.—They were. Q.—Are you in a petition to say whether they are correct or not? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you see them from time to time? A.—Yes. Q-—That is the regular log, from time to time? A.—Yes. 758 io 20 30 (Wm. Cox—Direct.) Q.—That is the regular log book for 1889? A:—Yes. Q.—That log was kept by the mate? A.—Yes. Q.—Is it usual for the mate to keep the log? A.—Yes, sir. Q._What was the name of the mate? A.—It was my brother in 1889. Q.—Where is your brother? A.—He is sitting in court now. Q.—Did you take off from the log the position where you were at the dates you got these seals? A.—I did. Q—Did you do the same in 1890? A—I did. Q.—Who kept the log in 1890? A.—The mate. Q.—That was your brother also? A.—No, sir. Q.—What is his name? A.—Harris. Q.—Where is he? A.—He is in Victoria. Q.—As a matter of fact, for these two years have you taken off the position in which you were at the time that these seals were caught? A.—Yes. Q.—Now then, look at any date you like there, take about the end of July, 1889, and the end of July, 1890, tell me how far apart you were in your positions. Give it in rough figures, I do not want to go very close to it? A.—About 80 miles. Q.—Taking the Pribyloff Islands as a starting point, where did you fish, north, south, east or west, in the year 1889? A. —To the westward. Q.—Did you fish pretty much in the same position, or did you change your ground much? A.—Not in 1889. Q.—About what would be your radius of change? A.— About 80 miles. Q.—Why did you go to that very spot? A.—I thought it was safer off there. Q.—Hi made you think that? A.—I never heard tell of the cutters going in that direction, or going off that way much from the information I could gather. Q.—You thought it was safer? A.—Yes. Q.—You did not hear of the cutters going in that direction? A.—No. Q.—But how far off the Islands were you in round figures, tell us the trend? A.—80 or 100 miles. *, Q.—And you went there in the year 1889 because you thought it was safer—you understand I am speaking about 1889? A.—Yes. Q.—Where did you fish in 1890? A.—I was all over the Sea. Q.—Did you go to the westward of the islands? A.—I did, sir. Q.—How far east did you go?A.—About 80 or 90 miles. Q.—Did you catch seals there? A.—I did not see any. Q.—In what year? A.—1890. Q.—You caught none east? A.—None. Q.—Where did you catch your seals in 1890? A.—To the westward and the northward. Q.—What canoes had you in 1889? A.—I had 15 canoes and a stern boat. Q.—When you say that the Indians wanted to go home, what did they do? A.—They broke their spears up, and 60 threw their paddles over board. Q.—Was there any use staying any longer? A.—No. Q.—How was the weather getting when that happened? A.—It was getting better. Q.—Had it been rough before that? A.—Yes, it had been a bad season. Q.—Bad weather for how long? A.—The weather right along was bad. Q.—You say that it was getting finer? A.—It was, yes. 40 SO 750 (Wm. Cox—Direct—Cross.) .Q.—Now did you fish any part of Behring Sea in 1891? A. -I did, yes. At 5 o'clock the Commissioners rose. 20 4° So 6o Continuation of direct examination of William Cox by Mr. Peters, Dec. 18, 1896: Q.—You did not go to Behring Sea in 1888 at all ? A.—No, Q.—And the book called the seal book of schooner "Sapphire" which has been produced here already and which shows the catch for 1888 does not refer to seals caught in Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q-—And in addition to that it does not show the catch that that schooner made in 1888 on the southern coast? A. —No, dr. Q.—It only shows the catch made from Victoria, that on the northern trip? A.—Yes, sir. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Captain Cox, what was the reason that the "Sapphire" did not go to Behring Sea in 1888? A.—I couldn't hardly tell sir. Q.—You know no reason why the "Sapphire" did not go to Behring Sea in 1888? A.—Only heard the captain say he was afraid to go in. Q.—Afraid of being seized in 1888? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where is the captain? A.—He is dead. Q.—On the whole you had pretty good sealing in 1888? A.—We had a small crew. Q.—But the sealing per man was pretty good? A.—Yes, sir, very good. Q.—It was fully up to the average per man was it not ? A. —I could not answer that question. Q.—What is your best recollection and knowledge upon that subject? A.—Well, we did not go on the grounds that year Q.—But it was fully up to the average sealing per man was it not? A.—I have never made it up. Q.—Haveyou the book for all the catches of 1889 and 1890? A.—Yes, sir' Q.—What is that book you have in the office? A.—It is all the men's accounts and the expeneliture of the schooner. Q.—Kept on the schooner? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What is it called? A.—That is our account book for the men. Q.—It was kept on the schooner from day to day? A.— Yes, sir. Q..—The details are not in that book? A.—No, dr. Q.—I thought you said the details of the catch for 1888 were in that book? A.—The total from day to day Q.—The total of the schooner's catch by days is in that book? A.—Yes, sir, not itemized. Q.—And the entries were made at the time on the schooner? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That covers the same period that this book you have testified from covers? A.—We have a separate book for each year. It covers the same period. Q.—Those three books then are for 1888, 1889, and 1890 that you have? A.—I have not got them sir. 760 (Wm. Cox—Cross.) Q.—Where are they? A.—We hand the bill in yearly to the office. Q.—Those books that were handed in that were kept on the ship of the cateh from day to day, were for the years 1888, 1889 and 1890? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And were kept from day to day? A.—Were kept from day to day. Q.—Covering the same period then as the book which you have testified about entitled "Schooner 'Sapphire,' Second Book," for the same period, marked "For identification, No. 8?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—These are the log books when you were master for 1889 and 1890? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Entitled "Schooner. Sapphire, 1889," and "Schooner 'Sapphire' 1890" respectively? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you have given the location of your ship at different dates from these books? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now in either book—these are the logs, are they? A.— The ship's logs. Q.—Kept by you? A.—Kept by the mate. Q.—Under your direction? A.—Under my supervision. Q.—Did you look at the logs every day? A.—I could not say every day. Q.—Do you take the position of the ship yourself? A.— Always do if I can. Q.—Did you see it was properly entered? A.—I marked it up and Compared to see that the log was properly kept. Q.—In the logs there was no entry of catches? A.—No sir. Q.—You never knew a ship, did you, that did keep it in the* log? A.—I could not say that. Q.—Did you ever know one that did? A.—I don't know anything outside of my own log. Q.—When you take an observation and enter the latitude and longitude, what time would you take the observation? A.—In the forenoon and in the afternoon. Q.—Now, when would you enter the podtion of the vessel if you ever entered it at midnight? A.—In the log. Q.—Yes. A.—We never entered the position at midnight in the log. Q.—Made no entry for midnight? A.—Kept a log slate. Q,—At what time would you enter the men's accounts of the seal catch of the day? A.—Sometime in the evening, if we had time, and sometimes the next morning. Q.—Did you ever enter the latitude and longitude that you made the catch? A.—It was always in the log book. Q.—You mean the entry of latitude and longitude would be 5° from the daily observations, would it not? A.—And the sights we had taken. Q.—Your last actual observation would be taken at noon, would it not? A.—In the afternoon. Q.—"What time? A.—Any time we could get it; three or four o'clock. Q.—Before or after the day's work was over? A.—Befeire. Q.—And how far would the men go from the ship in the sealing business? A.—Oh, I think on an average four, five go °r six miles, sometimes further than that. Q.—Out of sight? A.—Yes, they would go out of sight. Q.—I notice occasionally in the log book entries like this: "This day's log contains a strong gale of wind from southwest and a heavy cross sea." You recited that "this day's Og contains" instead of setting in the log that it is a drong gale of wind from sou'west and a heavy cross sea. I find that in several places in August, but find no corresponding method of entry for July. In July you entered "This day commenced 20 3o 4° SO 60 with a strong west by southwest breeze, midnight same." And for instance, on July lt7h, "This day commenced with a strong easterly breeze." A.—Is that 1889? Q.—This is 1889. Have you any explanation as to the change of the method of entering? A.—In August, 1889, we were not on the sealing grounds so I did not examine the log particularly then at all. Q.—I wanted to see if you had any explanation of why it seemed to recite the contents of some other book in one place and not in another? A.—I could not say. Q.—You are perfectly clear that you were in there in Augud, 18S9? A.—I was there a few days, but I had left the sealing grounds. Q.—On or about when? A.—We come out. of the Sea, I think about the 4th August. Q.—You are quite positive about that? A.—I am, I feel certain the night of the 3rd or—- Q.—Came out of the Sea? A.—I think it was in the morning. Q.—This is no doubt the log from which you testified, marked "Schooner 'Sapphire,' 1889?" A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Dickinson:—I desire to have it marked now "for identification." (It was marked "No. 9," for identification.) Q.—Do you know of the catches of any other year in the sea? A.—Not positively. Q.—Did you know the sealing vessels in the years 1888 and 1889? A.—I know a few and spoke a few. Q.—Can you give me the names of a few that you spoke? A.—I spoke the "Pathfinder," the "Annie C. Moore," "Maggie Mac" and the "Albion." Q.—What year was that? A.—1889. Q.—Did you see anything of the "Beatrice"? A.—No. Q.—The "Theresa"? A.—I don't remember seeing her. Q.—In either year, 1889 or 1890, did you see the "Triumph"? A.—In 1890 I saw her. Q.—The "Mary Taylor"? A.—I don't remember seeing her. Q.—The "E. B. Marvin?" A.—I don't remember seeing her. Q.—The "Favourite"? A.—No, sir. Q.—The "Kate"? A.—In 1890 I think I saw the "Kate." Q—Did you see the "E. B. Marvin" in 1890? A.—Not in the Sea. Q.—Was the "Marvin" sealing? A.—I heard she was sealing there. Q.—You saw the "0. H. Tupper?" A.—I wouldn't say as to that. Q-—You know her? A.—I know her. Q.—Was she out that year, 1890, sealing? A.—I could not be positive. Q.—She was a particularly handsome ship and you would have recognized her if you had seen her, would you not? A. —Not more so than the rest of our vessels. Q.—The "Catherine," formerly the "Black Diamond," did you see her in 1890? A.—On the coast I saw her. -Q.—Sealing? A.—She come in that same place I was for a crew, but I don't remember seeing her on the grounds. Q.—Did you see her out sealing on the coast? A.—I did not see her in the Sea. Q.—The "Penelope"? A".—I spoke the "Penelope" on the coast. Q.—Sealing? A.—Sealing. Q.—The "W. P. Sayward"? A.—I don't remember her on the sealing grounds. 762 IO 20 (Wm. Cox—Cross.) Q.—You remember she was out? A.—I could not say that. Q.—The "Juanita" in 1890? A.—In 1890. Q.—Sealing? A.—I did not see her on the grounds. Q.—Did you see her sealing anywhere? A.—I saw.her some place on the coast. Q.—The "Sea Lion?" A.—I did not see her sealing. Q.—The "Walter L. Rich?" A.—I do not remember of sighting her. Q.— The "Ocean Belle?" A.—No, sir. Q.—Now did you see any ships from the States? A.—The "Alger" is the only one I remember of speaking in 1890. Q.—Any others, whether you spoke them or not? A.—I think I spoke the "Bessie," of Portland. Q.—Any others, whether you spoke them or not? A.—I don't remember. Q.—Still there may have been others that you saw that you cannot remember? A.—There may have been. Q.—Now, the Indians quarrelled with you, broke their paddles and spears. A.—In 1890.' Q.—What was the trouble with the Indians? A.—They wanted to go home. Q.—They were not afraid of being seized, I suppose? A. —Not in 1890. Q.—Were there bad storms? A.—It was dirty weather. Q.—Was that the reason for quarrelling? A.—One man was sick. Q.—Dirty weather, tell us what you mean by that? A.— 3° Well, if I remember aright, it was not very heavy but just so that we could not work to advantage. Q.—The Indians did not think it would be profitable for them? A.—They wanted to go home. Q.—Did that have anything to do with it. The Indians were being paid for the seal skins they took were they not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—An Indian is usually ready when he is off sealing to make what money he can, is he not? A.—Yes, sir, when he is out there, but when they take a notion in their heads money don't stand in the way. Q.—The only notion you know they took in their heads was they wanted to go home because of dirty weather? A.— Well, as I say there was one sick Indian aboard; the Indians were all afraid he would die and be a sort of a Jonah. Q.—They are supersititious about that are they not? A. —Very. Q.—Did the man die? A.—He died shortly after they came home. Q.—You think that was the only reason why they wanted to go home? A.—That is the only reason they gave me. Q.^-l thought you said a moment ago that the weather was dirty? A.—I say the weather was dirty and there was a sick man. Q.—I would like to ask you whether the catch of seals is classified into wigs, extra large seals, large seals, medium seals, middling seals, small seals, gray pups and brown pups? A.—Aboard the vessels? Q.—Are they classified? A.—Aboard the vessels? Q.—No, I am asking you if they are classified in the trade? A.—They are not with us, not in Victoria, Q.—Do you keep the skins separate? A.—No, they are all together. Q.—But you know the classification to which I refer evidently? A.—1 have heard of them being classified. Q.—In the sealing business? A.—Not in our part. Q.—Not in the sealing business at sea? A.—Not at sea no, 40 5o 60 (Wm. Cox—Cross—Re-direct.) Q.—Do you know Captain Laughlin McLean? A-—1 do. Q.—He is a sealer of about the same experience as yourself? A.—He was here before me. Q.—You know him pretty: well, that he is a man entirely familiar with the business? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you never heard, in the sealing business, of keeping classification at sea ? A.—I never did. Q.—In your knowledge of brown and gray pups, were they put right in with the other seals? A.—Altogether. Q.—You keep no account of the number of gray pups you get? A.—No. Q.—Nor of tho brown pups you catch? A.—No. Q.—Nor of the number of small seals you catch? A.— No. Q.—Nor of the number of medium or middling? A.—No, I keep no record. Q.—Nor of the number of wigs? A.—No, sir. Q.—And in the statement you have given in your direct testimony you have called them all seals and estimated them as a part of the catch? A.—Yes, sir. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: . Q.—You were asked, Capt. Cox, with regard to another book that is kept in the office. Who keeps that book? A.— The Captain keeps the book. Q.—Where is it now? A.—We handed it in to our owners. Q.—Who is your owner? A.—E. B. Marvin & Co. 3° Q.—And they have that book? A.—I suppose they have. Q.—At least you have not got it? A.—I haven't got it. Q.—And that book particularly keeps an account of the articles sold the crew, and the book that you have does not give it at all? A.—No. Q.—And this is the book you happened to have in your possession? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you produced the book that you had? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—You were asked about some entries in that log book, where it is stated that this day commenced with such and such weather. That log book was kept by your mate? " A.— By my mate. Q.—Your mate, when in Behring Sea, was your brother? A.—Yes, sir, Clarence Cox. Q.—And on the coast who was your mate? A.—Stoker. Q.—So that so far as the coad catch is concerned the log book was kept by the mate Stoker, and so far as the Behring Sea catch was concerned, was Irept by your brother, Clarence 50 Cox? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were asked by Mr. Dickinson as to certain classification of seal skins, and particularly, you mentioned gray pups. Now we already have before the Commissioners what a gray pup is. I want to ask this question; as a matter of fact, did you catch any considerable number of gray pups in Behring Sea? A.—Very few, Q.—They are caught where?. A.—On the coast. Q.—What do you mean by "very few"—what percentage would you say? A.—I don't remember of ever getting from 60 memory over one or two in a season. Q.—So you may say it is almost that they are nil—the gray pups? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What are the classes of skins you get in Behring Sea? A.—A great many of these large skins. Q.—So far as pups are concerned, you get very few? A.— Very few. Q.—On the coast it is different? A.—Yes,, sir, they are mixed skins on the coast. 40 764 io 20 30 (Wm. Cox—Re-cross—Re-direct. Wm. T. Bragg—Direct.) Q.—I don't ask you any reason for that, that is a fact? A. —The way we found them, yes, sir. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—You do not instruct yOur men not to take grey pups if they see them? A.—Never. Q.—You do not tell them not to take them? A.—They bring anything they can get. Q.—Except hair seals, I suppose? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—They bring grey pups or brown pups, small seals or middling seals, or wigs, or large seals or extra seals—whatever comes their way? A.—Althing they can bring aboard they bring. Q.—And they get credit accordingly? A.—Yes, sir. Re-direct examination resumed*by Mr. Peters: Q.—On the question of hair seals, do you get any quantity of hair seals in Behring Sea? A.—Oh, I think since I have been sealing two or three have come aboard. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Did your hunters get a full lay on the pups? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— They count the same as a full grown seal? A.—Yes, your Honour, everything that comes aboard. Mr. Peters:—That is in Behring Sea? A.—On the coast and every place. Q.—Since you have been hunting? A.—The first year or two I think they got six bits. Q.—What for? A.—For grey pups. Q.—Now what is the rule? A.—They get full pay for everything. Q.—Since when did that come in? A.—Since 1891. Q.—But prior to 1891 they got six bits? A.—Six bits. 50 60 40 Re-cross examination resumed by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Whether you pay six bits or $1 or $2 or f5 for the lay, whatever the price is, when you give the statement of the number of seals taken you have included pups, have you not, in your testimony and in your book? A.—Everything is included. William Thomas Bragg recalled out of order by consent, December 18, 1896, on the part of Great Britain, as to all cases except the "Carolena," and his evidence is printed here for convenience. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—You were on board the "Maggie Mac" at one time, were you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you tell me in what year? A.—1889 and 1890. Q.—We will confine you first to 1889. In what capacity were you on board that ship in that year? A.—Hunter. Q.—Will you tell me how many hunting boats you had? A.—Five hunting boats and the stern boat in 1889. Q.—How many men did she carry altogether? A.—I cannot tell you the exact number, but it was somewhere between 19 and 20. 20 40 So Go (Wm. T. Bragg—Direct.) Q.—She would have fifteen men to man the boats? Yes, sir. Q.—And then how many others would she have? captain, the mate, the cook and the cabin boy. Q.—And that was all, was it? A.—I think that was all on her that year; I do not remember whether the mate had one or two men in his boat, I would not be certain. Q.—Who was captain of that vessel? A.—Dodd. Q.—Who was mate? A.—A man, I think, by the name of Francis Davis, in 1889, that is for part of the season. Q.—In that year where did you seal? A.—On the coast of California, Oregon, Washington, Vancouver Island and Behring Sea. Q.—Do you remember when you went to Behring Sea that year? A.—I do not remember the exact date, but I think it was about the first week in July. Q.—Now do you remember the total catch for that year? A.—I have the total catch here. Q.—But do you remember from your own knowledge? A. —No, I do not remember the exact catch. Q.—Can you tell me the number of seals you caught; you shipped as hunter that year? A.—I had 497. Q.—Did you catch any of those on the coast? A.—I did. Q.—Do you remember how many? A.—I do not. Q.—Do you remember how many you caught in Behring Sea? A.—I do not. Q.—All you can give me from your memory is your total catch? A.—My own total catch. Q.—I believe you kept a memorandum book, but you die! not keep it all yourself? A.—I had a memorandum book that was kept by myself, but the entries were not made from day to-day, and I would not rely on the accuracy of it. Q.—It was made sometime afterwards? A.—Yes. ( Q — You are sure of your own total catch? A.—My own total catch I am sure of. Q.—You were paid on that, were you? A.—I was paid, yes. Q.—Were you out in the year 1890? A.—I was. Q.—In what vessel? A.—The "Maggie Mac." Q.—What trip did you take in 1890? A.—The Q.—You went to Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember when you went into Sea? A.—I do not. Q.—It was in July? A.—It was some time in July, abo t the first part of July, but I do not remember the date. Q.—Do you remember when you left the Sea? A.—I notice in that book that the last day we hunted was the 25th August. Q.—Is that correct so far as you remember? A.—I think it is. Q.—Can you tell me for that year what your catch was? A.—I beg your pardon, that 25th August was 1889, and I cannot say what was the last day we hunted in 1890. Q.—Do you remember your catch for 1890? A.—No, I do not remember the catch for 1890. Q.—Were you ever on the "Annie C. Moore"? A.—I was. Q.—In what year? A.—In the year 1891. Q.—I will not go into that, but just tell us who was the captain of the "Annie C. Moore" in 1891? A.—Captain Hackett. Q.—Who was the captain in 1890? A.—Dodd. Q.—Where is Captain Dodd? A.—Captain Dodd is dead. Q.—Who was the captain of the "Maggie Mac" in 1889? A.—Dodd. same trip, the Behring mJSM ■jGG (Wm. T. Bragg—Direct. Win. O'Leary—Direct.) Q.—In 1889 you say that you caught seals along the coast, and thence you went on the northern trip into Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Before you left on the northern trip did you land the catch you got on the southern trip? A.—We went into San Francisco some time in March, I t hink it was, and what skins we had at that time we landed. Q.—What did you do then? A.—When we came out of there we started in sealing again. We never came to Victoria, we hunted on the coast of California, Oregon, Washington, Vancouver's Island, Alaska and down the Peninsula to Sand Point. Q.—What did you do there? A.—We put our skins on board a schooner that was chartered to take the skins home. Q.—So that at Sand Point you landed all the skins you had at that time, with the exception of what you landed in San Francisco? A.—We did not. land them at Sand Point, but put them on board a schooner to be shipped to Victoria. Q.—From that time until you got into Behring Sea, did you get any seals? A.—I cannot say whether we did or not. Q.—Whatever seals you. got after that you retained possession of them? A.—They were on board the vessel until we came to Virtoria. Q.—You brought them back and delivered them at Victoria? A.—Yes.. Q.—Did you take on board the skins of any other vessel? A.—We did not. Q.—So that all the skins you landed at Victoria were skins you had caught after 3tou left Sand Point? A.—Yes, sir, as far as I know of. Q.—On that point is your memory pretty clear? A.—It is, I never saw any coming on board the "Maggie Mac" from another vessel. Q.—You would know if they came on board? A.—I think I would. The witness was not cross-examined. William O'Leary, recalled out of order by consent, December 18,1896, on the part of Great Britain with reference to all cases in 1889, and especially with reference to the "Pathfinder," Claim 14, and his testimony is printed here for convenience. Direct examination by Mr. Beique: Q.—Caxit. O'Leary, you have been already examined as to the years 1886 and 1887? .A.-—Yes, sir. Q.—In 1888 were you in the Behring Sea? A.—No, I was not in the Behring Sea in 1888. Q.—You sealed on the coast only? A.—I sealed on the coast of Vancouver Island. Q.—In 1889 did you go into the Behring Sea? A.—I did, 6o Q._On what vessel? A.—The "Pathfinder'." Q.—As master? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Who was mate? A.—The mate of the "Pathfinder," n 1889, was Davidson, at the time I went into Behring Sea. Q.—Is he in Victoria? A.—I do not think he is in Victoria, he is around somewhere; he has a place two miles out of Victoria, I ihink. Q.—When did you see him last? A,—I think I saw him in Victoria this fall. used the stern boat to go out myself an odd time. Q.—I understood you had only five, boats and the stern boat? A.—We had six boats and the stern boat when we came in here. Q.—How was it that your number was increased? A.—Because one of the hunters would not go. Q.—Do you remember when you got to the Behring Sea? A.—About the 1st July. Q.—Up to what time did you seal in the Behring Sea? A. —Until about 29th July. Q.—What happened then? A.—Well the revenue cutter "Rush" came along and took all the skins we had from us, and ordered us to Sitka. Q.—Did she take only the skins? A.—She took the skins, the salt, the guns and some of the ammunition, but she did not take it ail. Q.—Did she take all the guns you had? A.—No, I think two shot guns and a rifle belonging to one of the hunters were not taken. I am not certain as to whether it was two or three—it might have been four—but there were two shot guns I know of. Q.—What crew had you that year in Behring Sea? A- An Indian or a white crew? A.—I had white men. Q.—How many white men? A.—I think I had 19 or 20, 30 but I am not certain as to one. Q.—On the 29th July, when your vessel was seized by the "Rush," how many skins had you? A.—Well, I think I had about 854. Q.—Taken in the Behring S< Sea. Q.—You took those from the 1st to the 29th July' Yes, sir. Q.—Did you keep a book of the daily catch? A.- have a book, ves. Q.—Have you got it? A.—No, I have not. Q.—When did" you see it last? A.—The last time I had it was when I came home from Behring Sea that time; that is the last I remember seeing it. Q.—Do you know where it was left? A.—I do thought I had it, but I find I have not. Q.—Had you been in the habit of keeping, from year to year, memoranda books of that kind? A.—Ob, yes! ways keep a book like that. Q.—When you were seized were you carrying a fla£ —Yes, when the cutter came along we hoisted the flag. Q.—What flag? A.—The British ensign. Q.—Do you remember how many guns they took from you? A.—I think about 12 shot guns and rifles altogether, I cannot remember distinctly now. Q.—-You state that after being seized you were ordered to Sitka A.—Yes. dr. Q.—Was an officer of the "Rush" put on board? A.—Yes, one of the quartermasters, he said he was. Q.—He was put on board your schooner? A.—Yes. Q.—What did you do then? A.—I started to come out of the Behring Sea? Q.—To go to Sitka? A.—No. I did not intend to go to Sitka. Q.—You did not look for Sitka? A.—No, I did not try to find it. Q.—You came to Victoria? A.—.1 did, 768 (Wm. O'Leary—Direct.) Q.—On your way from Behring Sea did you lower your boats or any of them? . A.—Yes, for part of one day. Q.—On what day was it? A.—It might have been about the 1st of August, but I cannot remember exactly the day it was, it was two or three days after we were seized; we were seized on the 29th August, it would be a couple of days after that. I think it was three boats went out. Q.—And they got how many seals? A.—They got 50 seals. Q.—Was it a fine day? A.—Yes, a good day. Q,—I suppose there were plenty of seals and you were tempted to lower your boats? A.—Yes, there were lots of them there. Q.—Was there any objection made by the American"\sailor who had been put on board your schooner? A.—None whatever, he went out in one of the boats. Q.—What kind of weather had you been having up to the time you were seized? A.—Good fair weather all the time. It was the usual kind of weather you get in there, some days were a little rough. Q.—How many days did it take you before leaving the Behring Sea after the seizure? A.—Quite a while, we must have been five or six days before we got through Unimak Pass. We had a head wind. Q.—Was it a wind that would have prevented you from lowering your boats if you had had the opportunity? A.— We had a couple of remarkably fine days after we were seized, the next day was a fine day, I remember particularly— 30 and the day I got these 50 seals that" was a fine day. Q.—Equipped as you were how many seals did you consider you would have taken if you had not been interferred with for the remainder of the season in Behring Sea? A.— I think about 12 more Mr. Dickinson:—You do not press that, do you? Mr. Beique:—Yes, it will be taken for what it is worth. By Mr. Bieque: Q.—Before leaving Behring Sea did you meet with any other schooner? A.—Yes, I spoke the "Allie I. Alger" next morning after we was seized, I remember being on board her. I also spoke to the "Kate." Q.—Was anything tranderred from the "Kate" to the "Pathfinder?" A.—Yes, some "skins were transferred. Q.—How many skins were transerred? A.—I think three or four hundred or. thereabouts. Q.—For what purporse were they transferred? A.—To bring to Victoria, the captain asked me to bring them home for him. Q.—On your arrival in Victoria what did you do with the skins you had taken in Behring Sea? A.—What I caught in Behring Sea myself I delivered to Carne & Munsie. Q.—They were owners of the "Pathfinder"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And what did you do with the skins brought from the "Kate"? A.—Spring got those skins. Q.—You delivered them to Spring as owner of the "Kate." What had you done with your coast catch? A.—I came in in April I think, with the southern catch from the California coast and landed them here. Then I went out and went to Sand Point and shipped what skins I had got on a schooner. When we came out of Sand Point I put them on board the "Wanderer" I think. Q.—Did you keep any log book in 1889? A.—No, there was no log book kept that year; the mate could not write and there was no log book kept. I did not keep any. Q.—How many skins did you send back rom that were taken between Victoria and Sand Pi do not remember. Q.—Five hundred and thirty-eight, was it not? not remember, it might have been that. Q.—Who knows? A.—Munsie will know, he got the skins. - Q.—And those skins which you shipped from Sand Point were all taken after you had equipped your vessel for the Behring Sea trip? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—So that the supplies that were taken on board the "Pathfinder" for the Behring Sea trip had largely been consumed in taking these skins that were shipped back from Sand Point? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—I suppose Mr. Munsie knows the cost of outfitting the "Pathfinder"? A.—Yes, he mud know, he put the stores on board all right. Q.—How long were you in here, in Victoria, just before you left for the Behring Sea trip in 1889? A.—I do not exactly know, I might have been four or five days, perhaps six, but I do not think it was over five. Q.—You outfitted your vessel for the Behring Sea trip— your stores and provisions were put on board? A.—Yes. Q.—And, of course, the provisions and stores you carried out for the southern trip had been consumed? A.—Well, partly, I suppose. They had some of them left. Q.—Very little left, I suppose? A.—I eannot remember what was left, but there was some left. Q.—When the "Pathfinder was outfitted for the southern trip she was not outfitted for the Behring Sea trip at the same time, they were separate and distinct trips? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And Mr. Munsie outfitted his boats in that way? A.— Yes. Hold on! I do not know, but I might have taken stores once after I left here. Q—After you left here, when? A.—In 1889. No, it was not that year, it was before. That's all right. We outfitted here for Behring Sea. Q.—And you outfitted here also for the southern trip? A. —I think I got my supplies from San Francisco that time if I remember light, we took some from here, and took some more there. Q.—But the supplies you got for the Behring Sea trip 3011 took here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That was the usual practice, wasn't it, to make two distinct outfittings, one for the southern and one for the northern trip? A.—Yes, it was the usual practice at that time. Q.—And for years before as far as you know? A.—Yes, any time I was sealing. Q.—I am asking you of your own knowledge? A.—Yes. Q.—Have you given the catch of the "Pathfinder" in 188C? A.—I think so. Q.—In your previous testimony you separated the northern catch from the Behring Sea catch? A.—As near as I could. Q.—Did you testify from memory at that time, or from books? A.—Just from memory. Q.—In 1888, I believe, you stated that you did not go into the Sea? A.—I did not go into the Sea, no. Q.—What boat were you on in 1890? A.—1 was on the "Ocean Belle" part of the season, and part of the year on the "Walter L. Rich." Q.—Who was on the "Pioneer" in 1890? A.—I think it was Captain Morgan. 49 A.—Yes. was out in A.- 60 (Win. O'Leary—Cross.) Q.—You were on the "Walter L. Rich" in Behring Sea in 1890? A.—Yes. Q.—How many boats did you have on the "Walter L. Rich" in 1890? A.—Five regular hunting boats. Q.—And a stern boat? A.—Yes. Q.—You hunted part of the time in the stern boat Q.—You hunted a little all the time? A. her most of the time she was out. Q.—What was the tonnage of the "Walter L. Rich?" I do not know exactty. She would be about 70 tons. Q.—How many men did she have in 1890? A.—I think there were 20 all toll. Q.—You had practically the same outfit in the "Walter L. Rich" which you had had in the "Pathfinder" in previous years? A.—No, I only took the "Walter L. Rich" from Northeast Harbor Q.—But, speaking of canoes, boats and men, you had about the same number? A.—Yes. Q.—How did she compare in size with the "Pathfinder?" A.—She was about the same size, I should think, or perhaps she was a few tons larger. Q.—Do you remember the catch of the "Walter L. Rich" in Behring Sea in 1890? A.—I think I had something over 600 skins. Q.—Was it not 63a? A.—It might have been; I know it was something over 600. Q.—About what day did you enter the Sea in 1890? A.— I cannot remember. It was somewhere in July; I guess it was somewhere about the 10th. Q.—It was about the ordinary time? A.—Yes, it was after the 1st, I know. Q.—You were late that year? A.—No. Q.—What time did you leave that year? A.—I left there some time towards the end of August. Q.—The fact is that that season. you hunted in the sea about the usual time? A.—Yes. Q.—And you took 600 seals within that period? A.—Yes; i left a little sooner than I would have left; I was short of grub that year. We got some of our stores at Sand Point that year. Q.—How late in August did you leave? A.—About the 25th of August, as far as I remember. Q.—You never were in there later than the 25th of August? A.—I do not think so; that was the last year I was in the Behring Sea. Q.—That was the latest time you were ever in Behring Sea, the 25th August? A.—Yes, towards the last days of August somewhere. Q.—Was there ansdhing unusual about the trip of the "Walter L. Rich" that year, 1890, in Behring Sea; did you lower your boats about the same as you did in other seasons? A",—It was about the same; 1 did not find the seals quite so plentiful as they had been. Q.—You did not have as good luck that year? A.—1 did not get as many seals. Q.—Did you see just as many? A.—I do not think I did. Q.—Some boats made good catches that year? A.—Yes, they made them after I came home—a good many of them. Q.—Is that so? Do you know the catch of the "Mary Tay- lor" that year? A.—I do not. Q.—Do you know the catch of the "Pathfinder" that year? A.—No, but I think she had over two. thousand. Q.—Do you remember if that was in Behring Sea? A.—I think that was her catch altogether, I do not remember what she had in the Sea, N 20 40 50 6o Q.—Did 3'ou know thf Sea? A.—No. Q.—Did you know the catch dif the A.—No. Q.—Did 3'ou know the catch of the Behring Sea, in 1890? A.—No. Q.—Did you know the catch of the "Kate" in 1890? A.— No, there is no use asking me these questions because I do not remember it. * Q-—You say that some of them made their largest catch after the 25th August? A.—I believe the "Viva" got a good many after I left Behring Sea. Q.—The Viva was always a high line in catching seals? A. —I don't know that. Q.—She had exceptional catches. Is not that true? A.— Exceptional in a way. She always made a pretty good catch, I guess. Q.—Don't, you know that Captain Baker made unusually large catches in the "Viva" in Behring Sea? A.—He generally made pretty good catches, I believe. Q.—Do you know any boat that caught more than he did in 1889? A.—I do not know what he had that year. Q.—You said that a lot of boats made their largest catches after the 25th August? A.—I say they got a good many • skins after I came out of the Sea—that is what I said. Q.—What boats were they? A.—The "Viva" I heard of. Q.—She is the only one you know of? A.—I heard of. Q.—Do you know the catch of any of the vessels in 1888 of your own knowledge. I mean outside of your own vessel? A.—No, I cannot tell what the other vessels had. Q.—Do you know the catch of the other vessels in 1887? A.—No, but I heard what some of the other vessels did have. Q.—You made an unusually large catch in 1887? A.—I had a good catch altogether. Where did you find the seals in 1889? A.—Well, the most of the seals I see in that year was to the westward of the Islands—that was the first and only time I ever was there. Q.—In 1890 where did you go to look for seals? A.—In 1889 I was west of the islands, if was in 1890 that I was to the eastward. In 1889, the time I was west, I was wed all the time. In 1890 I went there again and did not find them so plentiful. I saw more seals to the eastward that year, I did not remain long, I came home shortly after that. Q.—Were fifty skins all that you took in the Sea after you were seized? A.—That was about all as near as member. We only lowered part of.a day. Q.—You only lowered your boats once then? that is all, for a part of a day. Q.—When did you get into Victoria that year? not remember, I suppose you could find out at the Custom House. Q.—Did you report the number of seals you took in 1890 at the Cudom House? A.—Oh, yes. They have got all the catches there, I suppose. Q.—I ask you whether you reported the number of seals you took in 1890 to the Custom House? A.—I think it is likely I did. Q.—Did you report the number you had taken in 1890 to the Custom House? A.—What ported to the Custom House. Q.—What time did that custom commence? ways reported since I have been sealing. It h„~ declared at the Cudom House what you have on board when you come in. I can re- A.—Yes, A.—I do brought home I re- A.—I al- It has got to be 7/2 (Wm. O'Leary- -Cross.) A.—Always that I re- Q,—You have always done that? member. Q.—Since what year? A.—Well, 1886 was my first year's sealing. Q.—Do you say that in 1886 you reported the number of seals that you had to the Custom House? A.—I think that it is likely that I did. As near as I remember I always reported what skins I had. Q.—Then the Custom House would have the correct report of the catch of all the vessels that came in to Victoria? A.— I think so. I always, as far as I remember, made our report of the number of the skins in the entry. Q.—Did you in your report tell the collector whether they belonged to the coast or the Behring Sea catch? A.—I do not know about that; what skins were caught on the southern coast were landed here before we went north. Q.—When you came back did you tell the collector that you got so many on the way up? A.—No, I do not remember telling him that. What skins I had on board when I came home—those are the skins I reported. Q.—You did not tell him whether you got them in the Behring Sea or where you got them? A.—I do not think it is likely I did. Q.—You say that the cutter took part of your guns and left another part. Do you recollect that she actually took twelve guns? A.—Well, it.was about twelve, but I cannot remember exactly. I suppose at the time I came home I knew the number exactly, but I do not remember now. Q.—Were any of these guns ever returned? A.—Not that I know of. Q.—You never underdood from Mr. Munsie that they were? A.—No, I never heard from Mr. Munsie as far as I remember. ii.—How much ammunition did the cutter take off the "Pathfinder" in 1889? A.—That is something that I do not know. They took the ammunition boxes and the ammunition that was in them. I do not know whether they took any other ammunition or not. Q.—What would be the value of what they took? A.—I do not know; I cannot say what they took besides the guns. Q.—You said they took the ammunition boxes and what was in them? A.—Yes. Q.—How many boxes did they take? A.—I suppose they took five; we had five hunting boats, and each boat had a box. Q.—What kind of a box? A.—The usual ammunition 50 box. Q.—You could take it out in the boat? A.—Yes; perhaps there would be about one hundred shells in each box. Q.—That would mean that they took five hundred shells from the "Pathfinder?" What would they be worth? A.— I do not know; it is something that I never bought. Q.—Don't you know what a shell is worth? A.—They are worth different prices. Q.—Were they loaded? A.—Some of them were loaded. Q.—Are they brass shells or paper? A.—All brass. Q.—How much is a brass shell worth? A.—I do not know what they cost. I never bought one in my life. Q.—Did you ever buy a loaded shell in your life? A.— A loaded paper shell? A.—Yes, or a bras3 shell; either one? A.—No, I never did. Q.—They do not sell brass shells loaded? A.—Not that I know of, A.—Well, A.—No; I now what 30 40 60 (Wm. O'Leary- Q.—I suppose1 you reported to Mr. Munsie when you came back as to how many shells and how much ammunition they took? A.—I suppose I did. Q.—What kind of rifles were those they took? I could not tell what kind of rifles they were. Q.—Did you know the name of the maker? did not. Q.—What kind of shotguns? A.—I do not kind of shotguns we had that 3'ear. Q.—Were they old or new? A.—I cannot say whether they were or not; there would have been some new ones. Q.—Were they all new? A.—I do not know that; I will say that there might have been some new ones. Q.—Were they not the same guns that were in the "Pafl findr" in 1888? A.—I was not in the "Pathfinder" in 1888; 1887 was my last year. Q.—Were there some of them that were in the "Pathfinder" in 1887? A.—I cannot say; there might have been. Q.—You do not know the value of those guns? A.—I do not know what they cost. Q.—Do you know the value of them at the time they were taken? A.—No. Re-direct examination by Mr. Beique; Q.—You have been examined as to 1890; show on the chart the latitude and longitude of where you fished in 1890? A. —I was to the west of the Islands in 1890; I was all the way from" 60 to 80 miles west of the Islands. Q.—You mean the Pribyloff Islands? A.—Yes. Q.—How long did you remain west of the Islands? A.— I do not remember. I went to the eastward some time in August, but I do not remember what time. Q— Compare 1890 with 1889 or 1886 or 1887—state if 1890 was a good year? A.—No, I did not see the seals so plentiful in 1890. Q.—How was it so far as the weather was concerned? A. —The weather was fair; very good weather. Q.—How far east did you go? A.—About 60 or 70 or 80 miles east of the Islands. I was in latitude 169 or 168J; just about along there. Q.—In 1889 for what time did you outfit? A.—Until about the 1st of September. I generally allowed to leave Behring Sea about the 1st of September or the last of August. Q.—Did you ever fit out for a later season in Behring Sep.? A.—Not at that time. Q.—You have been asked as to whether you had an unusual catch in 1887. Was it an unusual catch? A.—Well, there have been catches as large and larger than that. That year, if I remember rightly, although there was only one catch that was over 3,000, there might have been another vessel that had as many as I had. Q.—Now in 1889 for what season did you outfit in the "Pathfinder?" A.—We allowed to stay in the Sea until about the 1st of September. Q.—On that occamon did you take some supplies at St. Paul? A.—In 1890 I did. * I did not take.any in 1889. Q.—I should have asked you if the ship's papers were seized and takem away in 1889? A.—Yes, the ship's papers were taken from us. Q.—You have been asked as to the reports made on the arrival of the vessel at the Custom House. Were they written reports that you had in your mind? A.—In making out the entry we always put down the number of skins we had on board when we got here. 774 (Wm. 0'Lt*ary—Re-direct. A. R. Bissett—Direct.) Q.—Is it made in writing? A.—Yes; that is, writing in the Custom House. Q.—Whatever report is made is in writing? A.—Yes. Q.—Are you sure you made any report in writing in 1886, 1887, or even 1889? A.—1 always enter the number of skins I have on board when I come in. They are always entered in the Custom House. Q.—Then if you made it it would be there? A.—It should be there. Q.—And you do not know as to whether any distinction was made between the coast and the Behring Sea catch? A. —No,' I do not know. The skins I have got between here and Sand Point and shipped back in another vessel, I do not know about that. q.—r;m you say about what your coast catch was in 1889? A.—No, I do not remember. 20 30 .40 SO 60 The evidence of the following witness, Alfred R. Bissett, was taken with reference to all cases except the "Carolena," and especially refers to the cases of the "Pathfinder" and "Ariel," and is printed here as a matter of convenience. Alfred R. Bissett was called on December 19, 1896, as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and was duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Where do yen live? A.—Victoria. . Q.—How long have you lesided in Victoria? A.—Since 1888. Q.—Where did 3'ou Bine from originally? A.—Nova Scotia. Q.—Did you bring a a esscl around? A.—I did in 1890. I was mate of the "Triumph' and was on passage around here. . Q.—How long have you been engaged in sealing? A.— Since 1889 inclusive. Q.—Every year with the exception of 1890 you haye been out? A.—Yes, sir, I did not go out that year. Q.—Were you on the "Theresa" in 1889? A.—I was. Q.—In what capacity? A.—Mate. Q.—About what tonnage was she? A.—I am not certain what her tonnage was. but I think it is 63. Q.—Will you give me the number of boats she carried that year? A.—Six regular hunting boats and a stern boat. Q.—White hunters? A.—White hunters. Q.—They used guns? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In that year where did you hunt? A.—We hunted to begin with on the coast for a short while. I joined her in May. From there I went to Behring Sea. Q.—Did you land your coast catch before you went to Behring Sea' A.—We'did. Q.—And you sailed for Behring Sea from where? A.— From the Shumagan group of Islands. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is there a settlement at Sand Point? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—An Indian settlement or what? A.—There is a store, .some company from San Francisco has a store there. Mr. Peters:—You say you sailed from Sand Point to Behring Sea. When did you enter the Behring Sea? A.— I am not certain what date, I think it was the 4th or 5th of July that we went through the Unimak Pass. Q.—Did you catch any seals.on the way up to Behring Sea from Sand Point? A.—Not that I remember of. Q.—Did you take any skins with you when you went into BehringySea? A.—Not that I remember of; we trans-shipped our catjh at Sand Point. Q.^-So that all the seals you afterwards speaks of were gofyfn Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. fa.—Do you remember the ship "Pathfinder" and the ship 'JfiLriel"? A.—I do. Q.—Do you remember their being seized? A.—I do. Q.—Were you near them at the time of the seizure? A.- Yes, sir. I think about the last day of July the cutter "Rush" boarded us, in fact she chased us and caught us and an officer came on board and he said they had come from the "Pathfinder." We saw a ship right alongside of the schooner, about six or seven miles off. He said that he had come from .the "Pathfinder" and that they had seized her. Q.—And they boarded you? A.—They boarded us. Q.—Did you see the "Ariel"? A.—Well, he reported her as one of the fleet that was in sight; the officer of the cutter reported her. Q.—There were more than two schooners in sight? A.— There were about four or five I think. Q.—And the officer of the cutter reported that he had seized how many of them? A—The "Pathfinder" is the only one that I remember of. Q.—That is what he reported to you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And they boarded you, did they? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were mate of the "Theresa"? A.—Yes, sir. 3° Q.—The officer came on board you, did he? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What did they do to the "Theresa"? A.—They boarded her, the officer went down and asked the captain for his papers. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Why is it necessary to go into that; there is no claim on behalf of the "Theresa," is there? Mr. Peters:—No, I will pass that. 4 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I would ' suggest that counsel should keep clear of everything that has been settled by.the Paris award. Mr. Peters:—Very well. (To witness): Q.—On that particular day when they reported that the "Pathfinder" had been seized, what time was it? A.—Nine o'clock in the morning. - Q.—On that particular day what sort of a day was it for 5° sealing? A.—A splendid day. Q.—Was it calm or rough? A.—Very smooth. Q.—Were there seals being caught that day? A.—Not while the cutter was around, they prevented us from lowering the boats. Q.—Did the officer of the cutter make any statement as to the seals that day? A.—He did. Q.—What did he say? A.—I remarked to him that seals were very plentiful around, and I told him in a joking way go that they seemed to know they were under the protection of- the American cutter. He said you think you have caught them plentiful around here, but you ought to be around the "Ariel," we had to shove them out of the way before us in getting on board her this morning. Q.—That is what he reported? A.—Yes. Q.—As a matter of fact, the "Rush" went away, did she? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you seal any that day? A.—We did. (A. R. Bisset io 20 30 40 776 -Direct—Cross—Redirect. Direct.) W. D. Byers— Q—With what success? A.—The cutter left us af 2 o'clock in the afternoon; she hovered in among the fleet of four or five vessels until about 2 o'clock; she steamed away at 2 and about 4 we lowered a boat, and we got 97 skins from 4 until 7 that evening, it was either 95 or 97, I would not be certain which, but it was either of those two numbers. Q.—What did the "Triumph" do after that? A.—Went away from there; the captain said he was afraid of seizure and we went down close to the passage out of the way of the cutters, as he thought. Q.—And you went out of the Sea when? A.—We did not go out of the Sea till the 3rd September, I think it was. Q.—What part of the Sea did you get away to? A.— We were down in the neighborhood of Four Mountain Pass. Q.—Did you find any seals there? A.—No, sir. Q.—Would you have gone there if it had not been for the cutter? A.—No, sir. Q.—You stayed in there part of the year? A.—We went down in the neighborhood of the pass and remained there for the balance of the season. Q.—Is that where you usually sealed? A.—Well, we left where we were hunting and got out of the way of the cutter. Q.—And you did not find any seals in that part of the Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—Now what was your catch that year in Behring Sea? A.—I don't remember what it was but it was a small catch, I think about 600 or 700 seals. Q.—Do you remember, or do you not remember, the number you had caught the day before the "Rush" came on board you? A.—I don't remember, I have no account of it. Q.—You are going away on a voyage, I believe, this afternoon? A.—That is my intention. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: come on board? A.- Q.—What time did the cutter About 9 o'clock in the morning. Q'.—And I suppose your boats had been out since 6 o'clock? A.—No, sir. Q.—You did not lower them? A.—No, sir. . Q.—And if- was one of the finest days for sealing that you saw? A.—Yes, the seals were very plentiful. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Why did you not lower them? A.—The cutter was 5° chadng us and we were trying to run away from her. 60 William Douglas Byers, a witness on the part of Great Britain, was duly sworn and examined out of order by consent of counsel. December 16, 1896, with reference to claim No. 14, the "Pathfinder," and his testimony is printed here for convenience. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Mr. Byers, I believe you were on the "Pathfinder" in the year 1889? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what capacity? A.—As hunter. Q.—When did you start on that voyage; where from and when? A,—From Victoria. Q.—What month? A.—Some time in January. Q.—And you went first? A.—Down on the California coast. (W. D. Byers—Direct.) direct to Victoria? A.—Yes, sir; about io A.—Yes, sir. ; the latter part of the British Colum- lst and had on a small Q.—Did you come the 20th of March. Q.—Did you sail from Victoria again ? Q.—When? A.—Some time in March March. Q.—And sealed where? A.—Up along bia coast and the Alaskan coast. ii.—Did you enter Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember when? A.—Between the 6th of July; I can't be positve as to the date. Q.—Now, will you tell me how many boats you board that ship? A.—We had six boats including stern boat. Q.—Five regular hunting boats? -V.—Yes, sir. Q.—And how many men A.—About twenty mer Q.—How many men for each boat? A.—Three men for each boat; besides that the captain, mate, cook and a cabin 20 boy. Q.—That was your whole crew?? A.—That was our whole crew. Q.—You were armed with what? . A.—With shot-guns. Q.—What kind of shot-guns? A.—I don't remember. We had some L. C. Smith guns and we had some English made guns. I don't remember what theyy were. I know we had some L. C. Smith guns. Q.—How many guns had you? A.—We carried one gun apiece—One shot-gun and a rifle. Q.—Were there any spare guns on board the boat? A.— Yes, I think there were. Q.—You sealed in Behring Sea up to what time? A.—Up to the 29th of July. Q—What happened on the 29th of July? A.—We were seized by the United States ship "Rush." Q.—What time about and day? A.—The 29th of July. Q.—And the year? A.—1889. Q.—What happened on the 29th of July? A.—The "Rush" 40 boarded us and seized us for sealing in Behring Sea. Q.—The "Rush" boarded you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you kindly tell me what took place? Describe it as briefly as you can? A.—You want the conversation? Q.—Who came aboard? A.—Lieut. Turtle came aboard and asked the captain how many seals he had. Q.—How many was it? A.—Eight hundred and sixty something, sixty-four, I think; between eight and nine hundred. 50 Q.—Can you tell what conversation took place between the captain and Lieut. Tuttle? A.—He asked the captain how many seals he had and he told him eight hundred and something; and he says: "Did you get them seals in Behring Sea?" He asked him how long he had been in here. He says: "Did you get them seals in Behring Sea?" The captain told him he did. Well, he didn't say any more; told him he would have to go aboard and report to the commanding officer of the "Rush," and he went and he came back and told the captain he would have to seize his vessel. Q— What did he do? A.—Well, his boat came aboard; took the papers; took all the skins we had in the hold; te>ok all of our guns and our ammunition boxes and our shells, our rifles and our shot-guns, all our rifle ammunition and our shells that were loaded. Q.—Did he take your powder? A.—No, he didn't take the rest of the ammunition. Q.—Or your shot? A.—No, sir. 60 m 778 (W. D. Byers—Direct.) Q.—If I understand you correctly he took all your guns and your rifles and the ammunition for 3'our rifles and your loaded shells? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—No other ammunition? A^—Not that I remember of. I won't be positive of that, but I do not think he did. Q.—Having done that, what did he do? A.—He took them away and put one of his men aboard of us. I think to he was a petty officer; quartermaster or something like that, and told us to go to Sitka. Q.—You do not remember the name of the man, do you? A.—No, I don't. Q.—Did you have to feed that man as long as he was aboard the ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Then, I suppose, he cost $10 a month? A.—I think he cost a little more. Q.—He ate hearty, did he? A.—I judge about $11. Q.—Did they do an3rthing more? A.—No, sir; that is all. 20 Q.—What did you do? A.—We couldn't find Sitka, so we came home. Q.—Did you look very hard for her? A.—Yes. Q.—Something wrong with the chronometer? A.—With the compass. Q.—You could not find Sitka? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you, as a matter of fact A.—The captain told me—I do not know whether he could find it or not. I was not supposed to know. Q.—I suppose you have a kind of general idea he might 3° have found it if he had tried very hard. A.—Probably he would. Q.—He did not find it? -V.—No, sir; he did not. Q.—Did you leave Behring Sea at once? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you get any more seals? A.—Yes, sir; we got a few more. Q.—What did you do with the man you had on board? A. —We did not do anything in particular with him. Q.—Did he do any work? A.—No, sir. Q.—When did you leave the Sea? A.—We came through the pass on the 1st day of August. Q.—Having been seized on the 29th of July? A-—Yes, sir. Q.—And you did some sealing outside of the Sea? A.— No, inside. Q.—And you only had two days to do it in? A.—That is all. Q.—Did this gentleman from the United States help you to seal? A.—Yes. Q.—I suppose that will go against his board, will it ? A.— cq Yes, I suppose so. Q.—Was he a good shot? A.—He just went out in the boat. Q.—Did you make him row? A.—He went out just as a pleasure trip. Q.—So that you were seized on the 29th, and you went out from Behring Sea through what pass? A.—Unimak Pass, on the fird day of August. Q.—Did you intend to stay longer than that? A.—Yes, sir; until the first day of September. 60 Q.—How many of those seals had you caught in Behring Sea, do you remember? A.—The amount I stated, eight hundred and something. Ill Q.—Were those all caught in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—None of them on the way up? A.—No. ' Q.—Did you get any on the way up? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many, do you remember? A.—No, I don't remember the, exact number. -Direct.) • Q.—There were eight hundred and somethin£ Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What had you done with the seals you caught on the way up to Behring Sea? A.—We put them on board the schooner "Wanderer" at Sand Point. Q.—So that you did not take into Behring Sea any seals from outside; and all the seals on the vessel that were seized were taken in Behring Sea that season? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How'was the weather for sealing when you were seized and for a few days after? A.—Very nice; the next day it was calm. Q.—Well, you caught some seals'that day? A.—Yes, that was the day we caught them. Q.—How many did you catch that day? A.—1: don't remember. Q.—How did you manage to catch them? A.—Some of the sailors had a couple of rifles in the forecastle. O.—You only had a couple of rifles? A.—No, there was only three boats out. Q.—You had only two rifles? A.—Three rifles. Q.—As a matter of fact, do you use rifles much for sealing? A.—Not as a rule, we don't. Q.—Even with rifles, what did you get? A.—I don't remember the number, it was less than 50. Q.—Much less? A.—Much less? I don't recollect exactly. Q.—Was that in one day. Did you seal more than one day before you went out of the Sea? A.—No, I don't think so. Q.—And you got something under fifty? A.—Less than fifty; I don't remember the number. Q.—If you had had 3'our proper apparatus or guns and proper ammunition, what was the chance em that very day to catch seals? A.—We would have caught at least one hundred and fifty. Q.—And the.day after that, the day you went out of Behring Sea, what was that like? A.-:—I don't remember the weather. Q.—And of course you know nothing about the weather in Behring Sea after you left that year? A.—No, sir. Mr. Dickinson:—Of course it is understood in all these matters .that the question of probable catch is actually reserved for the argument. That is the "Pathfinder" case and not the "Carolena." Mr. Peters:—I understand that objection; it is reserved all through. The Commissioner on the part of the United States :- all cases. Mr. Peters:—It is finally understood that that objection is to be argued after we are all through, the same as all the main points. (To witness): Q.—Can you tell me what time of the day you were seized? A.—It was about 11 o'clock. Q.—In the forenoon? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you catch any seals that morning? A.—I don't remember. We had a boat out for a while and it came aboard again, but I don't remember whether we caught any seals or not. Q.—Can you tell me how many days you had lowered in Behring Sea that year before you were seized? A.—I cannot tell you. Q.—What weather had you had in July? A.—Well, calm weather, say about two-thirds of the time sealing; it was what we call fair weather. iln 780 (W. D. Byers—Direct.) Q.—From your experience in Behring Sea, which is the finest month, July nr August? A.—Do you mean for weather or catching seals? Q.—We will take the weather first. A.—Well, I think July is a little better weather. Q.—How is it for catching seals? A.—August is the best month. 10 Q.—Is that your experience? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Why do you say it is better in August than July? A. —Well, from the fact that a majority of the seals in July are on the islands pupping, having their young, and in August they are through having their young and they are suckling and they come off and sleep in the open waters. Q.—Your experience is that they are more plentiful in August than July? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And as regards weather, you say it is not quite so fine? A.—The weather is a little finer in Julv than in August. 20 Mr. Byers was also examined relative to the sdzure of the "Pathfinder" in 1890, Claim No. 21, by consent of counsel. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Were you on board the "Pathfinder" the next year? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were you in Behring Sea in 1890? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On what vessel? A.—On the "Triumph." 30 Mr. Warren: umph." 40 -Which "Triumph"? A.—The big "Tri- Q.—As a fact, you know nothing about the circumstances of her seizure, not being with her in 1890? A.—No, sir. Q.—Have you been in the habit of fishing year after year on what is called the coast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where does that coast extend from, the part that is fished in the spring? A.—It extends from San Francisco up to Kodiak on the Alaskan coast. Q.—Will you tell me the months that the best sealing is had on that coast? A.—In April, May anel June. Q.—Was there any sealing before that in March and February? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—I want you to give the month of March, whereabouts is sealing carried on in the month of March? A.—Well, I do not know exactly; some fishing is done south and some off Cape Flattery and some off to the westward. Q.—But that is the coast the fishing is done On? A.—Yes. Q.—And they do fish there? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you.fish in any place in the month of March, 1890? A.—Yes. Q.—Where? A.—I fished on the coast of Vancouver Island and Queen Charlotte Island. Mr. Warren:—In the "Triumph"? A.—In the "Triumph." Direct examination continued by Mr. Peters: Q.—Did you fish in the months of March and April? A.— 60 Yes, sir. Q.—Did you fish in the first week of April and last week in March? A.—I can't say positive. ,Q.—At all events, you fished in April and in March? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—With any success? A.—Fair success for the season, at that time. Q.—You cannot give me the catch that you made at those times? A.—No, sir. I presume it can be had. 50 Wentworth E. Baker was called as a witness on the part 20 of Great Britain, having been already duly sworn, and was examined out of order by consent, December 17, 1896, as to Claim 21, the 'Tathfinder," and his tedimony is printed here for convenience. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—I want to ask you with regard to the "Pathfinder" for 1890, Claim No. 21. Do you remember, Captain Baker, the month of March, 1890? Will you be kind enough to look at your book and turn to the last entry you have for the month of March, 1890? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What is the last entry you have in the month of March, 1890? A.—30th. Q.—What does it state? A.—Nine seals. Q.—Now, I want to ask you if, shortly before that last entry was made, you had been to Neah Bay? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Can you tell me between what dates you were in Neah Bay? A.—Between that and April 2nd. Q.—As a matter of fact you were in Neah Bay? A.—Yes, 40 sir. Q.—Did you see the "Pathfinder"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was the "Pathfinder" in Neah Bay for? A.— She was there for repair. She was there to repair a rudder. Q.—You saw that, did 3'ou? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were on board? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Whilst you were on board her—I think you will find the date is before the 30th, but that is no matter—did anything happen that same day to the "Pathfinder"? A.—Yes, sir. I was looking at the date. I have not got the date '° that I went into Neah Bay—it was between the 25th and the 30th. Q.—You correct that other statement? A.—As near as I can remember it was between those days. Q.—It is between the 25th and 30th you were at Neah Bay? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did anything happen to the "Pathfinder" while you were there? A.—She was seized by the "Corwin." Q.—Did you see the "Corwin" there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were you on board the "Pathfinder"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Before or after she was seized? A.—I was on board before she was taken away. Q.—But had the officers been on board of her before you went? A.—Yes, sir; I don't just remember whether I went on board before the officers went on board, or after, but I was shortly after they went on board. Q.—Now, you went in there for what? A.—Water and shelter. 782 lW'. E. Baker—Direct—Cross.) Q.—You got there whal time of the day? A.—Arrived in the evening. Q._When did you leave? A.—I think I left the next night or the morning following, I don't know which. Q.—You were on a sealing trip, were you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, when you arrived there in what state was the "Pathfinder"? Was she being repaired or had she been re- 10 paired? A.—She had been repaired. Q.—She was ready for sea? A.—She was all ready for sea and was going that night. Q.—Now, you were on a sealing trip then, were you? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—On what ship? A.—On the "Viva." Q.—Will you be kind enough to tell me how far the sealing grounds were from Neah Bay? A.—About 30 miles. Q.—Did you often catch them nearer than that? A.—Yes, sir, sometimes within ten miles of Flattery. 20 Q-—On that particular occasion did you go from there directly to the sealing grounds? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Had you began to seal, or when was the next day that you sealed and caught seals? A.—The 30th of July, the next day I got seals. Q.—And you got how many? A.—Nine seals. Q.—What was your next day? A.—April 2nd I got three of the seals. Q.—And your next day? A.—April 4th.; 12 seals. Q.—That was the amount you actually got between those 30 days? A.—Yes, sir. Q.-—Will you be kind enough- to tell the Commissioners what kind of ground it is in that particular part, is it good or bad grounds for sealing at that time of the year? A.—It was then considered the bed grounds, that vicinity. Q.—Is that the time of the year that you catch them there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were there other vessels hunting seals in that same part at that same time? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—Do you remember any of them?- A.—Not particularly, 4° I don't remember any in particular. Q.—Just referring to the ground. You use the words "best ground." You are not referring to Behring Sea? A.— I am referring to the coast. Q.—That is the best ground for the coad, you mean? A-— Yes, sir, for the coast. Q.—How was the weather during those days that you fished, do you remember? A.—The weather was good, as near as I can remember, co Q*—Does the catch of seals made during those days enable you to say whether you lowered or not? A.—Yes, sir, we lowered duriner those days. Q.—On all the days that you have mentioned? A.—Yes, on all the days. . Q.—Had you an interest in the "Pathfinder" at that, time? A.—No, sir. Q.—A re you interested in any of the claims before the Commission? A.—No. sir. O.—None whatever? A.—None whatever. 60 O.—It is a fact that yon are not interested in any of the claims before this convention? A.—No, sir. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: q—Captain, you were on the "Viva" in 1890? A.—Yes, sir. Q— And who was ihe owner? A.—1890? William Munsie. Q—Who owned the "Pathfinder?" A.—William Munsie. Q.—Will you look at your memorandum book hy which you fix the date. How do you fix the date from the memorandum book? What date were you in Neah Bay? A.—At the time she was seized. Q-—How do you know what time she was seized? A.—I was there at the time. Q.—When was it? A.—Between the 25th and 30th; I won't be podtive of the date she was seized. I was there at the time, whatever date that was. Q,—How long were you in Neah Bay? A.—I arrived in the evening, and I think I left the next night, I wont be sure. Q.—What day? A.—I think it was on the 26th, I won't be sure; the 26th, I think it was. Q.—You had white hunters? A.—White hunters, yes. Q.—Who were the men, do you remember? A.—I could not name them now. Q.—How many boats did the "Pathfinder" have? A-—She had six boats, I think, Q.—Including the stern boat?. A.—No, sir, I think she had six boats and stern boat; I would not be positive. Q.—How many did you have? A.—I had six boats and a stern boat. Q.—In the spring you shoot your seals sleeping? A.— Yes, sir, a great many of them. Q.—Do you shoot a large number sleeping? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—More than you do in Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—Are there more traveling in the spring than there are in Behring Sea? A.—I have found them so. Q.—When did you make up this book that you referred to? A.—I made it up every night on the ship. I eiidn't keep any record of that date. I only know what day I left in this book—as near as I can remember it was between those dates. Q.—Will you examine your memorandum and see how many, seals you took between the 15th of March and the 15th of April that year? ' A.—(Examining,) 105 seals. Mr. Dickinson:—The entries in this memorandum book 40 from which you have given your testimony here to-day are all in pencil, are they not? Witness:—All in pencil, sir. (Memorandum identification.) books referred to marked Nos. 3 and 4 for Charles A. Lundberg, a witness called on behalf of Great Britain in the case of the "Ada," Claim No. 11, being duly sworn was examined, by consent of counsel, out of order, December 18, 1896, and his testimony is printed here for convenience. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: s:n Q.—You came to Yokohama in 1879, did you not, Mr. Lundberg? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And in 1881 were you sealing and otter hunting? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—In the schooner "Alexander?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You went for the regular cruise that year? A.—Yes, ir. Q-—Then in 1883 you were sealing and otter hunting in the 'North Star" on the Japanese coast, I believe? A,—Yes. sir. 734. (C. A. Lundberg—Direct.) The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Has this witness a personal claim? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Yes, I believe he has, he was the mate and navigator on the "Ada." Mr. Peters:—It comes under the "Ada" in the same statement of claim. Sir C. H. Tupper:—In 1882 you were living where? A.— In Yokohama. Q._When did you first know the schooner "Ada"? A.— I knew her when they started to build her. Q.—Were you residing near the place where she was constructed, the ship yard? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where was she built? A.—In Yokohama. Q.—In the fall of 1882? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you see her during the course of construction con- 20 stantly, every day? A.—Yes, sir, every day. Q.—What was she built of? A.—She was built, the frame, of Meki. Q.—The keelson too? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—It is a hard wood? A.—Yes, sir. Q.;—What was she planked with? A.—Either Oregon pine or Douglas fir—some call it Douglas fir and others Oregon pine. Q.—What were the cabin fittings of the "Ariel"? A.— You mean the wood work? Q.—Yes. A.—This kieki. Q.—What style were these fittings? A.—Polished. Q.—Polished and hard wood? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Any brass furnishings? A.—Well, there was brass fittings, yes, sir. Q.—Was she well upholstered? A.—She was. Q.—What sort of fastenings? A.—Copper fastenings to her water lines. Q.—Generally speaking what kind of work was done on that vessel? A.—As good as could be done. Q.—And she turned out what class of vessel? A.—First- class. Q.—Do you know what the lull and spars actually cost of the "Ada" ? A.—Yes, I heard the contract made. Q.—Were you present when it was made? A.—I was. Q.—What was the amount? A.—15,500. Q.—Do you remember the tonnage of the "Ada"? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—What was it? A.—65.25. Q.—British register? A.—British register. Q.—Do you know some other vessels that were built about that time at Yokohama? Do you know the Diana? A.—She was built the year before. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—About the same. Q.—About 60? A.—Sixty-two I think it was. I am not sure. Q.—What was the cost of the hull of that vessel? 40 So 60 Mr. Lansing:—Wait a moment, what is his knowledge? Sir C. H. Tupper:—I asked him if he knew any other vessels built at Yokohama about that time and he mentions the "Diana." (To the witness:—You know what the hull cost of the "Diana"? A.—I know what they told me. Mr. Dickinson:—I think it would be well to know how a witness of this kind knows such an important matter as cost.' (C. A. Lundberg—Direct.) Sir C. H. Tupper:—You were living near the ship yard when that vessel was built? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—While these people were doing the business? A.— They were living with me. Q.—Who was the owner of the "Diana"? A.—Captain Patterson. Q.—Was he building her? A.—Yes, dr. io Q.—Did you get the information from him? A.—Yes, sir, from the three of them. Q.—What was the cost of the hull? (Objected to by Mr. Dickinson as hearsay testimony. Question withdrawn). Q.—What did the balance of the fitting, the running gear, the hawsers, and the upholstering of the "Ada" cost. Do you know? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How much? A.—f2,000. 20 Q*—Y°u told us that yon were present during the construction of that ship? A.—I was present when they made the contract between them. Q.—These men who were interested in the vessel did their business in your hotel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In your presence? A.—Yes. Q.—You heard them discussing the matter from time to time? A.—Yes, sir, both in the hotel, and out in the ship yard, where was Cook's office. Q.—And it was from the information you got at that time 30 3'ou gave your answer? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you know Henry Cook, John Carroll and Walter Hard3r? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were these men building the ship? A.—Yes, sir, and Anthony Cook. Q,—Was there a Hardy captain as well as shipwright? A. —Hardy was the captain and part owner. Q.—Did he give his own time to the work done on the "Ada?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—He attended to it personally? A.—Yes, sir. 4° Q.—Are you sure of that? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—Where is he to be found? A.—He is in Yokohama, I think. Q.—When did you see him last alive? A.—Seven years ago. Q.—When did you hear from him? A.—I have not heard from him since. Q.—And you do not know he is dead since? A.—I cannot say. Q.—When you said you thought he was alive yuo were re- 5° ferring to seven years' ago? A.—Yes, I have not heard he is dead. Q.—Have you heard that he is alive? A.—No, I have not. Q.—What yon know of him was seven years' ago? A.— It was in 1887; I lived in Yokohama in 1887, and have not heard from him dnce. Q.— You have not heard from him, or seen him, since 1887? A.—No. 60 Q*—When did you see John Carroll last? A.—I did not see him since the year before I left, that would be in 1886. Q.—You have not seen John Carroll since 1886? A.—No. q.—When did you see Henry Cook lad? A.—I saw him a few days before we left in the month of March, 1887. Q.—Do you know where any of these people are now? A. —I cannot say, I think that Carroll is dead, but I cannot tell. Q.—When you speak of the value of the hull, brass, rigging and so forth, what value are you referring to. Are you re- 50 £^BS 786 ill (C. A. Lundberg—Direct.) ferring to the cost at Yokohama or the cost here? A.—That I cannot say. They mentioned so many dollars. Whether they were dealing in gold or in Mexican I would not be sure. 10 -Yes, they spoke of dol- A.—Yes, from 20 were three together laughed at 30 40 So 60 Q.—They spoke of dollars? A. lars there. Q.—You came to Victoria in this ship in 1887? sir. Q,—You came over on the "Ada" on her voyage Yokohama to Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were connected with the vessel in what way? A. —I came over as passenger in her to go as mate and hunter when we got here in Victoria. Q.—-You were in Victoria when she was getting ready to' go to Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In what year? A.—In 1887. Q.—Who was the owner of her at that time? A.—Mr. Gray. Q.—Was he here at that time? A.—Yes, sir, he came over with us. Q.—Do you know anything in regard to any offer to purchase that ship at Victoria that year? A.—I do. Q.—What do you know? A.—Well, Mr. Sayward offered him |9,000 for her. Q.—Offered whom? A.—Offered Mr. Gray. Q.—In your presence? A.—Yes, we walking up Johnson street. Q.—What did Mr. Gray say to that? A.—He him and said that he would not sell the vessel. Q.—He refused to take f9,000? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What did he say? A.—He said "I do not take $10,000 for her." Q.—Was the ship ready for sea then? A.—No, that was after we came up from the west coast; she was making ready. Q.—About what month? A.—It was in June. Q.—In 1887? A.—Yes, sir, in the fird part of June. Q.—Now then had you anything to do with ships before you came to Yokohama in 1879? A.—Before I came to Yokohama I was a sailor. Q.—When did you go to sea first? A.—When I was 14 years old. Q.—You were born in Sweeden? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You went to sea in 1879? A.—Yes, sir, and in small boats before that. Q.—You have been to sea aIT"37our life? A.—Yes, sir. Q._What part of 1887 did you join the "Ada?" A.—I went on board at Yokohama on the 5th of March. Q.—Under what arrangement? A.—I made the arrangement the day before; she had shipped a crew already, and that was how I came to go as passenger in her. Q.—Under what arrangement did you go on board at Yokohama? A.—I went on board to go as mate, take care of the skins and salt them. Q.—That was your work on board? A.—Yes, after we left Victoria. Q.—Where were you going to hunt? A.—On the west coast, if we had time. Q.—But the Behring Sea was your main object? sir. Q.—That arrangement you speak of was made hama? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When did you leave Yokohama? A.—On 5th March. Q.—You came direct to Victoria? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—Do you remember when you arrived? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When? A—On the 6th April, A.—Yes, at Yoko- Q._What did the "Ada" do here? A.—We laid her up a little while, we had a little fixing to do on her; she broke her gaff and some small things. Q.—What did you get ready for? A.—To go down on the West Coast Q.—To do what? A.—To catch seals. Q.—What crew had you on board? A.—We went down on IO the West Coast and got Indians to hunt—there were not white hunters to be had. Q.—When you got your Indian hunters, how many had you all told on the vessel? A.—We had 14 canoes and 28 Indians. Q.—And what crew had you beside? A.—I think we had six men with myself. Q.—Does that include the captain? A.—No. Q.—Who was the captain? A.—Van Pelt. Q.—How many did you take from' Yokohama on board? 20 A.—Five white men. Q.—Did you have any hunters? - A.—No, five white men, and four Japanese. Q.—Then you went out to the West Coast sealing? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—When did you return from that sealing trip on the West Coast? A.—We returned, I think, on the 1st of June, or at the end of May, I am not sure which. Q.—How many skins had you? A.—We had 349. ,_ Q.—What was done with the ship when you got back from the trip? A.—We commenced to make her ready for Bphr- ing Sea as quick as' we could. Q.—Did you keep these hunters? A.—No, some of them went back. Q.—What hunters did you get for the Behring Sea trip? A.—Some of the same Indians and some others. Q.—And how many canoes? A.—Seven canoes and one boat. Q.—That was the stern boat? A.—Yes; sir. 40 Q.—How many Indian hunters did you have? ' A.—Fourteen. Q.—How many white hunters? A.—One. Q.—What was your position on the trip to Behring Sea? A.—I was mate. Q.—And what else? A.—I shipped as mate and hunter, but I did not hunt. Q.—When did you sail from Victoria for the Behring Sea? A.—We sailed about the 16th or 17th of June, 1887. Q.—Where did you take the Indian hunters on? A.—At 5° San Juan. Q.—What other name is given to that port? A.—Kat- china. Q.—Where did you put in after leaving San Juan for the Behring Sea? A.—We got into a gale outside and smashed three canoes and went into Ukulet to replace them. Q.—Did you replace them? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Then you proceeded on your voyage? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When did you enter Behring Sea? A.—On the 16th Go Ju]y- Q.—And of that same year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were seized on the 25th August, were you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—By what vessel? A.—By the "Bear." Q.—State briefly what happened on that occasion? A.— The lieutenant came on be>ard of us and asked for the ship's papers, and the captain handed them to him; then he told us that we were violating the laws of the United States, and 788 (C. A. Lundberg.—Direct,) we thought we were not';"he asked what we were doing there, and we told him that we were sealing, and the captain pointed to the flag. Q_What flag? A.—The English flag. Q._Where was it flying? A.—It was flying at the masthead. We said we were on the high seas. The officer went back to the cutter, and reported to Captain Healey, his commanding officer. Shortly afterwards he returned to us. q.—What did he do then? A.—He came back with seven or eight men and started in to make ready to take us in tow, and told us we were seized. ( Q.—He started to take you in tow? A.—He darted to make ready, and I told him, and so did the captain, that our boats were out, and we asked him "Was he going to leave the men behind"? Q.—What boats were out? A.—The canoes and the stern boat were out; he finally stopped for a while and told us to signal to the boats, which we did right away. Q.—And you stayed until you got the boats in? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—They were out sealing at the time? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And when the boats came in what happened? A.—We got the canoes on board and they passed a line to us. Q.—How many seals had the boats when they were called in that time? A.—They had 38. Q.—How much of the day's sealing was over at that time? A.—It was just half-past eight. Q.—In the morning? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What time had they been out? A.—They went out about six e^clock, or probably a few minutes before six. Q.—And at half-past eight they brought back 38 seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was done to your ship then? A.—She was taken in tow by the "Bear." Q.—Were there any of a prize crew left on board? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—How many? A.—A lieutenant and three men. Q.—They remained on the "Ada"? A.—Yes, and the balance went in the boat back to the shiD. Q.—Where did the cutter make for? A.—Ounalaska. Q.—You arrived at Ounalaska subsequently? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What happened there? A.—They anchored us there for all night. O.—Did the captain of the cutter say anything to your captain? A.—He did not.say anything that I know of that afternoon, but the next morning they came and hauled us alongside the wharf. Q.—Before you were hauled alongside of the wharf, was there any conversation that you remember between the captain of the cutter anel the captain? A.—Yes; they-took guns and money and everything from us, and put it on board the "Bear." Q.—Who hauled the schooner alongside the wharf? A.— The crew of one of the cutters. Q.—Did the officers of the cutter take any inventory of the "Ada" then? A.—They searched the whole of the vessel right- throuarh. Q.—Did they take anything else other than the arms and money? A.—Not that evening, but when we came alongside the wharf they took the skins out and the salt. O.—They did not take nrovisions? A.—No. sir. O.—When von were told that vou would be hauled along- Side the wljapf, was anything said between yoqr captain apd 789 io 20 30 40 so 60 (C. A. Lundberg—Direct.) the captain of the cutter? A.—Not after we came alongdde. Q.—Did your capain give up the arms and money willingly? A.—He wrote out a protest. Q.—That was before the arms and money were taken? A. —Yes, sir, he protected that nothing was to be taken out of the ship. Q.—It was after that that everything you have spoken of in regard to removal of the arms, and money and skins took place? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—What became of the "Ada's" papers? A.—The lieutenant took them and kept them. Q.—What happened to the log book? A.—That was after they had taken out the skins, Captain Healey stood on the wharf and asked for he log book; our captain said that he had no log book for the ship, but only a private log. Captain Healey said: "I want to see it;" our captain said, "If 3'ou will give mo your word of honor to give it back to me, I will get it out." He said then, "Hand it here1." My captain told me to go down and get it, and I handed it to him, and he handed it to Captain Healey. Q.—When did he get ii back? A.—He never got it back. Q.—Not that you know of? A.—No. Q.—Did you hear him ask for it? A.—Both me and my captain asked the captain and lieutenant on board the "Bear," and they would not give it back. Q.—Now, after staying in Ounalaska, what was done to the ship. What were you told to do? A.—When everything was out he told the captain to take her to Sitka, and the crew refused to go. Q.—The crew of the "Ada" refused to take her to Sitka? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was done then? A.—They wanted to know who was going to pay for them for taking..her down because it was understoejd that there was no wages when the ship was seized. Q.—The crew knew that you were told to take the ship to Sitka, and they refused? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did your captain report what they said to Captain Healey? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—What die! Captain Healey say? A.—He pointed over to the other vessels seized the year before, and he said, "Do you see those three rotten British hulks there? Take her down to Sitka, or else I will haul her over there, and let her rot, and I will put your crew on the beach, and take you down in one of the cutters as a prisoner to Sitka." Q.—What effect had that? A.—Well, I stood on the deck and heard it, and the captain said to the crew, "Do you hear what that man says? What are we to do?" There was nothing said for awhile, and they consulted amongst themselves, and the captain came again and asked: "Are you willing to go, or what is it going to be? They said they would go to Sitka. Q.—After that was communicated to them they agreed to go to Sitka? A.—Yes, sir. q.—What became of the Indians? A.—They were all on board of the "Ada.' Q.—Did they go from Ounalaska to Sitka? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In the "Ada?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was there no officer of the United States on board the "Ada" on that voyage from Ounalaska to Sitka? A.—There was a petty officer from one of the cutters, but I do not know what he was. Q.—How did you get out of Ounalaska? A.—We were towed out by the "Bear?" Q-—How many days passage was it between Ounalaska and Sitka? A.—I think it was nine days. Q.—Now, at Sitka, were you allowed to go on shore when you got there? A.—Not at first, the captain went ashore, and the crew stayed on board. Q.—What became of the Indians? A.—They were all told to stay on board for a while until we had got further orders. Q.—How long were you and the crew compelled to stay on board of your ship at Sitka? A.—I think it was four or five days, or something like that. The captain told me that there were no charges against the "Ada," and, of course, he told that to me when he came on board. Q.—In whose charge was your vessel at Sitka? A.—There was a special policeman on board. Q.—And he "was back and forth from the vessel? A.— He stayed there modly all the time, he may have gone on shore sometimes. Q.—After four or five days did you get liberty to go ashore? A.—The captain came and told us that we were to quit, it, and that he was going away; he said that the crew was acquitted but the vessel had to remain. Q.—How long was that after you had been at Sitka? A..— About four or five days, or a week; it was when the first steamboat with mail came up. Q.—He said that he was going away. Why did you not A.—We could not, we had nothing to go with. Q.—You were unable to go away? Q.—Did you apply for means to get away -I was. -Yes, sir. Q.—To whom? A.—We applied to the Governor, or I did. Q.—And you were unable to get away? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How long were you actually at Sitka? A.—We were there until the 25th September. Q._Where did you live while there? A.—We lived on board. Q.—I suppose that after the four or five days were up you could stay on the ship, or go ashore? A.—We could go anywhere we liked. Q._What food did you eat? A.—We were eating of the ship's food. Q.—Your own ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—While the ship was there were any of the provisions taken away? A.—I seen some taken ashore. Q.—Who took them ashore? A.—This constable. Q.—What was his name? A.—J ay cocks or Hitchcocks. Q.—You saw him taking provisions? A.—Yes, but not when he was on duty—it was afterwards. Q.—It was after his guard? A.—Yes, after we were liberated. Q.—After you were liberated you saw him taking provisions from the vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were you able to shoot any deer for food when you were there? A.—No, we asked for the loan of a gun and we could not get one. Q.—You could not get even the guns to shoot food with? A.—No, dr. Q.—Were you taken before the judge? A.—No—Oh yes, we were too! I forgot when I answered first. There was some questions asked, but I was not sworn. Q.—But you were before the judge and court? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you understand what was being done? A.—I do not remember. .Q.—Who took yon before him? A.—I was sent for to go in there, one of the marshals came. IO 20 30 40 So Go (C. A. 791 Lundberg- -Direct.) Q.—You cannot tell what was done in the court? A.— No, I cannot tell; I was asked some questions. Q.—After the week had run out you could not^et away as you had no means to pay your passage? A.—No sir. Q.—How did you get away? A.—We finally got'away on the "Rush." We had to go and make application to him. Q.—To whom? A.—To the court judge—Dawson. Q—What did he tell you? A.—He told us that we could get away on the "Bush," but he did not know when she was going; that was after we had stayed on board ten days, we had no more provisions at all. I went up and asked him how it was going to be, because the Indians were running after me. I had no control over anything as long as it was that way, I did not know who took the things away, I had no command over the crew. Q.—Nor over the providons? A.—Over nothing. Q.—What did he do? A.—He said there were enough provisions on boarel her to last us for as long as we were here. I said I did not know where the. provisions were, but that there was no more on board of the schooner. There was some buscuit in the hold that the Indians had, and then we had to sell our clothes, what little we had. Q.—You had to sell your clothes? A.—We sold everything we had right down to our boots. Q.—Before you got away? A.—Yes. Q.—And finally the "Bush" took you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When was that? A.—The 25th September. Q.—When did you arrive here? A.—I arrived on the 4th October. Q.—I omitted to ask you in'regarel to the sealing. Can 3'ou tell me how man3' days you were actually sealing during the time you were in Behring Sea in August and July, 1887? A.—I know how many full days we had, but I do not know how many short days. Q.—How many full days had you? A.—We had twenty- one full days, or rather, I think, it was twenty full days and one three-quarters day. The balance would be an hour and a half or so when we would lower the boats and get a seal or two.' Q.—That is up to the 25th August? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When did you enter the Sea? A.—About the 16th day of July. Q.—How many seals did you expect to catch at the rate you were taking them that season? A.—I calculated to get 3,000 seals that season. Q.—At the rate you were taking them what would you likdy have caught? A.—Well, we figured out after we were seized that, if we kept on as we were going, the way the weather was that year, and the way the weather generally is, we should have another thousand after we were seized. Q.—Another thousand outside of the 1,876? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What sort of sealing weather was it when you were seized? A.—It was fine, very good. Q.—What sort of weather was it that very day that you were being towed to Ounalaska, and up to the time you got there? A.—Very nice weather. Q.—What sort of weather was it from Ounalaska to Sitka? A.—There was pretty fair weather. Q.—Good sealing weather? A.~Yes, sir; we had a couple of days of bad weather. Q-—Had you anything particular to do With the provisions on the "Ada"?. A.—Well, I was looking after the cook, and the interpreter, in fact I had charge of everything that was in her. 1 Q.—You had charge: of the provisions? A.—Yes, sir, both provisions and ammunition. Q.—When you were taken on the 25th August, are you able to say how long these provisions would have held out had you been left alone? A.—We looked over the provisions just a couple.of days before we were seized to see how much there were; we took the Indian chief to look over the Indian beef to see how long it would last, and we calculated that it would last to the 1st October. Q.—How long did you propose to remain in the Sea that Until the middle of September. Q.—You found provisions there to last you for that long? A.—Yes, until the 1st October; Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Mr. Lundberg, when did you arrive in Sitka? A.—We arrived in Sitka on the 5th September Q.—And you stayed on board your ship how long? A.—• We stayed on board the ship—well, I was on board the ship myself all the time I was there, except a couple of nights ashore. i Q.—You stayed there until the provisions gave out, did you? A.—Yes, we eat all the provisions until they gave out. Q.—And the provisions gave out, when? A.—After we had been there ten days, I cannot exactly say how many days, but about that. Q.—How much provisions did the policeman take on shore? A.—I did not see him take much—he took some rice. Q.—When did he take them? A.—I cannot tell how much it was; I seen him take some rice out of the hold. Q.—How much? A.—He took a couple of "mattes" at one time. Q.—What else? A.—He took some butter. Q.—How much? A.—I cannot exactly tell you. Q.—How do you know he took any? A.—I was on the poop, and I saw it pass over the rail; he went down the hold, he had another man to help him. Q.—Do you know what it was he passed over the .rail? A.—Yes, sir, rolled up in bags and something or another, there was beef and rice and some butter, but I cannot exactly say. Q.—How many pounds? A.—I did not say it. Q.—About how much? A.—I cannot tell you. Q.—Have you no idea? A.—He had it in a sack, there was about half a sack full of beef, that would weigh about 75 pounds. Q.—How many sacks did you have on board when you got to Sitka? A.—We did not have it in sacks, but he passed it out in sacks. Q.—How many pounds of beef? A.—A barrel and a half. Q.—About 300 pounds? A.—About that. Q.—He took 100 pounds? A.—I do not know, I did not weigh it, it may have been less. Q.—Do you know anything about it? A.—I know no more than I saw them pass the sack ashore. Q.—How did you know it was beef? A.—I knew it because I saw the pickle running out of the bag. Q.—What else did he take? A.—Some butter. Q.—How much? A.—I do not know. Q.—What did he take that away in? A.—He took it in a bucket, about half a bucket full. Q-—What kind of a bucket? A.—He took it in an ordinary ship's bucket. Q-—What else? A.—I did not see him take anything else that time. Q.—That is all he took? A.—That is all he took that time. Q.—Did you see him again? A.—No, but I heard them eay that he was back and forward for provisions. Q.—You say that you were there yourself all the time? A.—No, I was ashore sometimes. Q.—rYour provisions gave out ten days after you were at Sitka? A.—Yes, sir. io Q.—What did you sell to get provisions? A.—I sold two coats and a suit of clothes, a pair of boots and oilskins. Q.—Did they come out of the slop-chest? A.—No, I did not have charge of that. Q.—What became of these things? A.—I do not know. Q.—How much money did the captain have with him? A. —That I cannot tell you, I do not think the captain had very much money. Q-—How much did you get in advance? A.—Do you mean in Victoria? 20 Q.—Yes, A.—I had |50 in advance. Q.—Did you have any of that left? A.—No, I did not carry money to sea. Q.—You spent it all? A.—Yes. Q.—Hid the captain carry money? A.—Yes, he carried money. Q.—What became of that? A.—He bought three canoes for it to begin with, and what was done with the balance I cannot say. >, 30 Q*—^*°- y°n ask kim f°r aoT money at Ounalaska or Sitka? A.—I asked him for money, but he told me he had none. Q.—He went away on the steamer? A.—Yes, he went away on the steamer. He came and told me he was going. I asked him if I could not get rid of the crew on the same conditions he was going down. I asked him if he had any money left, to give me some, he said he had none. I asked him then, how he got down without money; he said: "I gave an order on my owner." I asked him if he could get us down the same way; he said he had tried and could not. 40 Q.—Now, we will go back to Yokohama. How many vessels do you know were purchased there? Sir C. H. Tupper:—I dropped my quedions about the "Diana" and the "Penelope." Mr. Lansing:—Very well I will not ask you about that. Q.—Where was it you say the contract for the "Ada" was dgned? A.—When she was built? In the hotel, in the little room. 5° Q.—Did you read that contract? A.—No. ■Q.—You do not know what was in it? A;—It was read out. Q.—It was all read out? A.—It was all read out. Q.—DM you sign it as a witness? A.—No, sir, but just standing there listening to it. Q.—What "were you doing in there? A.—We were in there, and had a glass of wiDe over it after it was through. Q.—What kind of money was in it? A.—I do not know exactly, he mentioned dollars—it was f5,500. Q.—What kind of dollars? A.—They did not say. Q.—There are two kinds of dollars in Japan? A.—There are three kinds. Q.—They did not say what kind the price was to be in? A. Not aa I remember. Q.—They did not have any gold dollars, did they? A.— They generally made their contrarts in gold on such a basis. Q.—Would it not have been in pounds sterling if they made —f~"■ -a 794 (C. A. Lundberg—Cross:) it in gold? A.—No, American gold if thev made it in gold. Q,—But the contract did not mention gold? A.—I do not think it did, I do not remember. Q.—You know it was in silver, don't you? A.—I do not know whether it was in gold or diver, or paper. Q.—You heard the contract read? A.—Yes. io Q-—And you cannot remember that? A.—I cannot remember that. Q.—Do you know what Mr. Gray paid for the "Ada?" A. —No, I do not. Q.—You did not see that contract? A.—No. Q.—You only saw the contract for building? A.—I saw the contract for building, Captain Hardy made the contract. Q.—Did you hear how much Mr. Gray paid for the "Ada?" A.—No, he only bought part of her, an3rway, I think. Q.—How much did he pay for the part? A.—I think he o bought first one-third, and then I think he bought out another third. Q.—Do you know how much he paid for the one-third? A. I do not. Q.—Did you hear an3rthing about it? A.—No, I don't •think I heard. They had it between themselves. Q.—Do you know how much he paid for the second interest he bought in the boat? A.—No, I only heard it said that he had to pay a good deal more for the second one-third than he did for the first one-third, but I do -not know more than 3° that. Q.—You know nothing about it? A.—No. Q.—And have no idea? A.—No. Q.—Who owned the other one-third? A.—Captain Pyne. Q.—When she came over here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where is Captain Pyne? A.—I think he is dead; we left him in Yokohama, and I have not seen him since or heard of him. Q.—Who owns his interest? A.—I guess Mr. Gray bought the whole thing afterwards, or got somebody here to buy it out. I have not asked about that; I do not know. Q.—Who were the builders of the "Ada?!' A.—The builders were Harry Cook, John Carroll and Anthony Cook. Q.—Who was the purchaser? A.—Captain Hardy was nntil she got here. Q.—What names were in the contract besides the builders'? A.—The builder was Harry Cook. Q.—But besides the builder? A.—There was Hardy and Anthony Cook and John Carroll. Q.—They were the three owners? A.—They were the three owners.. Q.—The "Ada" was built of hardwood? A.—It was built of hardwood and pine. Q.—Oregon pine? A.—Yes, Oregon pine or Douglas fir. Q.—Where did that wood come from ? A.—From the other side.. q.—it was carried over to Yokohama for the "Ada?" They did not need to carry it over. They had a lumber yard there. They would get a ship load over from here and put 60 it in there. Q.—The pine which was put into her was carried over from this side? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And does this hardwood you have spoken of stand the weather very well? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you go over the vessel with Mr. Gray at the time he purchased? A.—No, sir. Q.—He came over with you on the "Ada?" A.—Yes, sir; but he owned her before that, 40 <;o did you continue- to 'live her I got money enough from my agent to telegraph to my wife. 20 She was in Yokohama, and I telegraphed to her to sell out everything there and come over here. I had no money to get back with, and my owner had none. Q.—Do you remember the "Ada" coming down to Port Townsend? A.—I do. Q.—How long was that after she had been seized? A.— It was a couple of years, I think. I was on Vancouver Island at the time. Q.—Was it not the next spring? A.—I don't think it was; I think it was a good deal after that. Q.—Was it not in 1889? A.—I think it was, but I am not sure. Q.—Well, you came down in the fall of 1888? A.—That may be; I cannot say, but I remember that she was down, because I heard of the auction and I was coming down to buy her. Q.—I suppose that this wood you have mentioned—kiachi wood—would last a long time? It would not be ruined? A.—Some of it might, but I do not think hard lumber like the kiachi would be injured. Q.—You were coming down to buy this ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you go over to Port Townsend? A.—No, we were delayed in the Narrows. . Q.—You missed the auction? A.—I missed the auction. I got into Nanaimo the day of the auction or so. Q.—You think a few hundred dollars would put the "Ada" back into shape again? A.—I did not see her. Q.—What do you think about her? You know this kiachi 5° wood and have seen so many vessels built of it? A.—I would not send any one else to go down and buy her; I would like to see her before T bought her. Perhaps she had been abused, and I'd like to have seen for myself. Q.—Do 3'ou know what she sold for? A.—I think she sold for very little. *Q.—She sold for f 1,900? A.—I think it was for something like that. Q.—Mr. Gray was here in the city? A.—Yes, Q.—He knew about the sale? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You talked with him about it, didn't you? A.—No, I did not. I got a letter from Vancouver about the auction. I heard that they were going to come down with her, and I left word to send me word if they heard of the auction. Q.—Mr. Gray knew about the auction? A.—I do not know whether he did or not. I did not see Mr. Gray for two or three vears then. 796 (C. A. Lundberg—Cross.) Q.—Did you know Mr. Gray was in the city? A.—I know he was around here in British Columbia. The Commissioners then took recess. The cross-examination of the above witness was continued after recess. Q.—Mr. Lundberg, when did you leave Victoria in 1886 for Behring Sea? A.—I think it was the 16th or 17th of June. Q.—And you went to the west coast first? A.—We went down to get our Indians, yes. Q.—And from there you went directly to the Behring Sea? A.—Well, we fird went in to get our Indians, and then, as I 20 said before, we smashed our canoes and had to go to Ukulet to replace them. Q.—Did you seal any before you went into Behring "Sea? A.—We did not lower our boats, but we saw a few seals. Q.—You did not lower your canoes? A.—We did not lower our canoes. We only got five seals from the time we left Ukulet until we got to Behring Sea. Q.—Were you out sealing in 1888? A.—No, sir. Q.—Were you out sealing in 1889? A.—No, sir. Q.—Have you been out sealing since at all? A.—No. Q.—Your only experience of sealing was in 1886? A.—I was interested in sealing in 1889. Q.—Were you the white hunter they had on board? A.— Although I did not hunt, much I hunted the dern boat, and the hunter hunted the other boat. Q.—You said you had been engaged as hunter and mate? A.—That means to take care of all skins and look after things in general. We intended to get a white crew when we started, but we got Indians. Q.—How do you remember the number of days you low- 4° ered your canoes in Behring Sea? A.—I had a small book which I kept to see how many lowering days I had. Q.—Have you got that book now? A.—No. Q.—When did you see that book last? A.—About a year or two ago. I don't remember exactly. Q.—Where? A.—I left it in a house on the west coast of Queen Charlotte Islands amongst other books. Q.—You knew that you had a claim here at that time, didn't you? A.—I knew that I had a claim. Q.—You have a claim before the Commission now, have you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were you paid your wages for this year's sealing? A. —No, dr. Q.—You never have been paid? A.—No, sir. Q.—Are you then interested' in the owner recovering something because of this claim? A.—Yes, for my "lay out" of the skins we had on board when we were seized. Q.—You have that interest? A.—Yes. Q.—What was your lay? A.—60 cents per skin for everything that came over the rail. Q.—That is all the claim you have before this Commission? A.—That is all the claim I have against the owner. Q.—Just your "lay out" on the number of seals taken? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—You received no wages outside of that? A.—No, sir. Q.—And if the owner gets anything back from these skins that were seized you expect to get your lay from him? A.— I expect him to pay me; yes. Q.- Q- log. Q.—Who kept the log? A.—The captain or the navigator. Q.—Where is Captain Gordon now? A.—I do not know if he is here or not. Q.—Do you know whether he is in town or not? A.—I IO have not seen him dnce he went on the "Quadra" to Vancouver on Saturday. Q.—You saw him on Saturday here in town? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you expect to go sealing this season? A.—No, sir; I have not sealed since. Q.—What was your hurry, then, in getting away from Victoria? A.—I have a fishing station at Kutchen, and I am cutting ice for the company. Q.—Can you tell me what was your largest day's catch in Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—Your own catch? A.—Yes. Q-—Do 3'ou mean the largest day's catch? A.—Yes; I thin-i it was three seals. I went out but little. I had enough to attend to on board. Q.—You have had no other experience in sealing except that? A.—Yes, I had been sealing on two different occi- sions before. Q.—Where was that? A.—Out of Yokohama. Q.—On what vessel? A.—On the "North Star" and the "Alexander." Q.—Did you kill these seals in the Sea? A.—Yes, wz killed the seals in the Sea on the "Alexander," but not on the "North Star." Q.—How did you take them on the "North Star?" A.— We took them ashore. Q.—You went ashore and clubbed them? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you not do that on the "Alexander?" A.—No. Q.—What weapons did you use on the "Alexander?" A. —I used rifles. . Q.—What did 3'ou use in Behring Sea? A.—Rifles. Q.—Did you have your own rifle? A.—No, I was ship- keeper on the "Alexander." Q.—Did you have your own rifle in Behring Sea on the "Ada?" A.—I had my own shotgun. I didn't have my own; I had a. ship's gun. Q.—You did not have any of your own? A.—I had a 12- bore gun of my own, but I did not use that for sealing. . Q.—Was that taken from you? to me. Q.—It was given back to you? Victoria. Q.—Were the guns given back to the hunters? think some of them were. Q.—Were not they all? A.—That I cannot say. Q.—You saw them given back? A.—I saw some of them getting some guns back. Q.—Some of the hunters of the "Ada?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And they could have taken them if they wanted them? A.—I think every one who claimed his gun as his own got it. Q.—Did they take them from the Indians? A.—That I am not sure of. Q.—You spoke of the two cane>es that were purchased? A.—I spoke of three canoes. Q.—Was not that considered as an advance to the Indians? A.—I do not think so. Q.—Did they get an advance besides? A.—I think their advance was given here in Victoria if they had any, but I cannot say that. A.—No, it was returned A.—After I came here to 7y8 (C. A. Lundberg—Cross.) your Indians here? A.—No, I did not Q.—Did you ship all ship any Indians. Q.—How could they get an advance in Victoria then? A. —The chief generally comes up and gets the advance; he generally comes up here and gets some of it, Q,—Do you know anything about it then? A.—Not much. Q.—You do not remember it and were not present? A.— No. Q.—Were you not the interpreter? A.—No, sir; I was not. Q.—You had charge of all the skins and dealt with the Indians? A.—The interpreter interpreted everything I said. I had charge of everything on board the vessel. Q.—What did the captain have to do with it? A.—The captain was navigating officer. Q.—Who knows about the cost of the supplies for the "Ada?" A.—Mr. Gray would know. Q.—Did you not have anything to do with getting the supplies? A.—No, dr; Mr. Gray was there himself and attended to that part of it. Q.—You had nothing to do with it? A.—No, only that he sometimes called and asked me my opinion as to what was needed, or something like that. Q.—Was there any other vessel taken with you at the same time into Ounalaska? -V.—Yes, sir. Q.—What other vessel? A.—The Allie I. Alger" Q.—Who was captain of her? A.—Captain Charles Raynor. Q.—Had you been in company with the "Alger" before that? !Y—Yes, we saw the "Alger" before that. Q.—Did you not know that she was getting ready to go out of the Sea? A.—No, I do not think so. Q.—Did not Captain Raynor tell 3'ou so? A.—No, I do not think it. Q.—And did 3'ou not talk about the "Ada" getting ready to go out. of the Sea? A.—No, I do not think 1 did. Q.—Will you say that you did not? A.—I will say I did not. If I remember right I told him I was going to stay in late, as I had plenty of supplies and salt. Q.—What did you call late? A.—Well, the way we were outfited I thought we were going to stay out until, probably, the 20th December, or the middle of December—depending on what the weather would be. Q— That was on the 25th August? A.—Yes. Q.—When you were seized? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And. you would call after that time staying late in the Sea in those years? A.—After the 15th of September I would call it late. Q.—Do you know anybody that stayed out after the 15th of September? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Who was it? A.—We stayed in the "Alexander" until the 23rd of October one year. Q.—That was not on this side of the water at all. Did yon know anybody in 1887 that dayed out as late as the 15th of September? A.—No. Q.-—Did you know of anybody that stayed out as late as the 5th of September? A.—I did not know any of the other vessels because we got out when we were seized. We earned seals in the "Alexander" later than that, and I was going on the same principle in the "Ada," and I had an idea I would stay late. Q.—How many years ago was that? A.—1881. Q.—Who was your captain? A.—Fred Folson. Q.—Where is he now? A.—He is dead. He went down in the "Helmbloom" with all hands. "Ada," what do you biscuits and beef and salt, and such things as that. In fad. we gave them mostly anything such as we used ourselves. Q-—What distinction do you draw then when you quote "Indian Food?" A.—We had it in two different departments. We had the "Indian Food" in the hold of the vessel; we had the white food aft in the lockers. Q.—Did they have any dried fish on board? A.—They had some. Q-—Did they have any seal meat? A.—Sometimes they 20 took seal meat. Q.—And you gave them tea, sugar, and everything just the same as white men? A.—Not everything—I did not say everything. I- said we gave them tea, sugar and bise-uits. Q.—At Ounalaska the Indians stayed on board all the time? A.—No, they stayed aboard about ten days. Q.—And then they left? A.—They went ashore and "tented." They hauled up the canoes and boats; so'that it was hard to get back and forward. Q.—Did they take the canoes with them? A.—No, no 30 canoes; they were hauled ashore before that. Q.—Did the Indians go off in their canoes while you were there? A.—No, the canoes were all hauled up. Q.—What became of the canoes? A.—I suppose they are there now. Q.—Were not the Indians on shore during these ten days? A.—They were allowed to go ashore. After that I went "ashore and every one else went ashore. Q.—You stayed four or five days? A.—Yes. Q.—Were the Indians fed all that time on the schooner? A.—Yes. Q.—And their canoes were all ashore all that time? A.— I do not remember exactly when their canoes were taken ashore. Q.—You said that they were taken ashore as soon as yott got there? A.—I do not think I have, said so. If I did I will call it back. I said that the canoes were taken ashore before we were released or when we were rleased—I could not say for a certainty. But they were taken ashore and 'o hauled up. After ten days we were deprived of the boat we came back and forward to the vessel with. Q.—After five days you were allowed to go ashore whenever you wanted to? A.—Five or six days—I don't know which. Q.—Did all these Indians eat on the vessel every day from the fifth up to the tenth day? A.—They ate on the vessel as long as the providons lasted, and they came and went. Q.—In 1881 the "Alexander" was on the Russian side? A. —Yes. I started from Yokohama and went to the Kurile Isl- 60 ands. Q.—Anel you hunted along the Kurile Islands in October? A.—No, sir." Q.—Where were you then? A.—We were in the Behring Sea. Q.—What part? A.—We were to the southward and east- ward of St. George Island. Q.—On the American side? A.—Yes, it is on the American side I suppose you would call it. 8oo (C. A. Lundberg—Cross—.Redirect.) Q.—Was the "Alexander" a San Francisco boat? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Who owned her? A.—Levies. Q.—You did not land on the island that year? A.—No, sir. Q.—Are you very sure that you did not land on the islands in the fall of 1881? A.—I went ashore on St. George's Island. Q.—Which rookery did you land on? Do you know the names of the rookeries? A.—No, I do not. Q.—That is why you went up there in October? A.—I don't know about that. We had a broken jibstay, and we rtied to get water at Unimak, but we could not get in. Q.—Did you take any seals on that island? A.—Ho, sir. Q.—Not a seal? A.—No, sir. Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—You explained about the amount of stuff the policeman took off the ship. Am I right in understanding that after you got into Sitka the people were coming and going to this ship at various times? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were asked with regard to the sale of the "Ada" at Port Townsend? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What notice had you as to that sale? Did you know the day it would come off? A.—No, I did not know the day, but I gave notice in Vancouver to the manager of the Bank of British North America to let me know when the vessel was going to be sold, and if I could get a steamboat to come down I wanted to see how she looked. Q.—Did you get notice in time to go to the sale? A.—I would have been in time if I had not been delayed. He notified me by letter, not by advertisement. He wrote me a letter and said he believed the vessel was going to be sold in July—I am not quite sure which month it was, because I was up and down then five or six trips. Q.—What prevented you from going to the sale? A.— We were delayed on the steamboat. Q.—And so you did not attend the sale? A.—No, I did 40 not get further than Nanaimo. Q.—You were unable to go? A.—Yes. Q.—You said Mr. Gray was here at the time. Was Mr. Gray able to buy the ship at any price at all at that time? A.—I do not think he was. Q.—Do you know how he was affected financially by the seizure So 60 -Yes, I do. A.—He Q.—What was his condition after the seizure? did not have any money at all. Q.—He has been unable to pay your lay? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You have not been able to get a dollar? A.—No. Q.—Before that seizure what was his financial condition? A.—Very good. Q.—You were asked a question or two in regard to your reason for desiring to get away from Victoria to-day. What is your business? A.—My business is halibut fishing and ice cutting. Q.—Why are you anxious to get away? A.—I have a contract for 5,000 tons of ice at $3 per ton for next fall, and I have an ice house made and ready for it. Q.—Where is the house? A.—Akutchen Island. Q.—What would happen if you could not get away, to at tend to that budness? A.—I would lose my contract. Q.—Do you remember about the time that you were asked about just now? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How long before you were seized, about? A.-^-I guess about a fortnight, or simewhere about that; I cannot say how many davs. (Lundberg—Gustave Hansen—Direct.) Q.—You spoke of a flag being on the "Ada" at the time of the seizure. What flag was it? A.—There was a British ensign. Q^—That was at the masthead? A.—Yes, we hoisted the flag for the steamboat as she came along, as we did not know what she was. io 20 Re-cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Mr. Lundberg, did Mr. Gray own the "Penelope" in 1887? A.—Yes. Q.—Did he own her in 1888? A.—Yes, I think so. Re-elirect examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—Do you know that Mr. Gray sold the "Penelope" to pay part of his debts after the seizure? A.—I do. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I suppose Mr. Lundberg can go away. Mr. Dickinson:—Yes. 50 Go Witness Lundberg took the stand at his own request to correct a statement made by him when testifying before. By Mr. Peters: 30 H—What statement is it you want to correct? A.—I made a mistake in the year, when I come to call myself back. Instead of being on the "Alexander" in 1881 it was in 1S82. Q.—Is that the only statement you want to correct? A.— That is the only statement I want to correct. Gustave Hansen, re-called and examined out of order by 40 consent, December 19, 1896, as to the "Winifred," Claim No. 24. The Commisioner on the part of the United States:—I understand, Mr. Peters, that you filed no reply in this case. Mr. Peters:—1 did not think it necessary. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—And you do not intend to. Mr. Peters:—No, we thought the issues clearly defined by the two pleadings. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: 'Winifred?" : Q.—Do you remember a schooner called th A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Had you any interest in her? A.—I had. Q.—What interest had you in her? A.—One-third. Q.—Did you seal in the "Winifred" in 1892? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where did you seal from? A.—From Victoria. Q.—What size of a. vessel was the "Winifred?" A.—I think she was put down for 13 tons but she was considerably larger than that. Q.—She was used in sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In this year she sailed from Victoria on a sealing trip, elid she? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What number of boats .or canoes had she? A.—Four boats. 51 802 10 20 40 60 A.— A.— (Gustave Hansen—Direct.) Q.—Four sealing boats? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—No stern boat? A.—No, sir, the stern boat was a regular sealing boat. Q.—How many of a crew all told had you? A.—Nine. Q.—How many men did you use to a boat when hunting? A.—Two. Q.—Were these smaller boats than the ordinary sealing boats we have been talking about? A.—There were two 17- foot boats and two IS- foot boats. Q.—What guns did you have on board when you started? A.—We had shot guns and rifles. Q.—How many shot guns? A.—I don't remember, sir. Q.—Do you remember the class of guns they were? A.— There were some Greener guns and, I think, there were one or two Smith guns. Q.—These were all breech loaders, of course? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you provisioned for the voyage, and for how long? A.—I was provisioned for the Behring Sea trip. Q.—For how many months did you calculate that trip? A. —I left pretty late, I think it was about six or seven months. Q.—What happened after you started on your trip? Did you get into Behring Sea without any trouble? A.—I had to run through the Unimak Pass with a southeaster. Q.—You were warned not to go into Behring Sea? Yes, sir, twice. Q.—By an American ship and by a British ship? ^ Yes, sir. Q.—As. a matter of fact you did go into the Behiing Sea? A.—Yes, sir, I had to. Q.—Explain to the court why it was that you had to go into the Behring Sea? A.—I was hunting over off Lavathnak near the Unimak Pass. Q.—You were seal hunting off the coast of that Island? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That was when? A.—The 12th July. Q.—You were not in Behring Sea then? A.—No. Q.—You were outside of the Sea then? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What happeneel when you were hunting there? A.— A southeaster sprang up and put me. on a lee shore. Q.—A heavy southeaster or what? A.—Yes, sir, a heavy southeaster. Q.—What diet you do? A.—I called the crew and told them our position and told them: You know we were warned twice not to go into the Sea, but I think it my duty as master of the vessel to let you know our position; we are on a 5° lee shore and only 24 or 25 miles from the beach; if the wind goes down we are all right, we will weather it, but if not, we will be among the rocks; I have the bearing of the pass and can make for it, for the safety of your lives, I can run through, but you know we were warned. Then they said: Whatever you think is right, do it. And then stood away. I was hardly through the pass when I had to come down to double reef foresail and I lay for three days on the same tack. Q.—You hove to? A.—Hove to, yes, sir. Q.—You had got through the Pass then when you hove to? A.—Yes, sir, I was partly through, so to say through, I had to drift a long time. Q.—After the three days' storm was over ,what did you do? A.—I started to work to' the eastward to get out. Q.—What pass were you going out through? A.—The wind turned up to the southward, and more southerly, and finally sou' sou'west, and I kept on the starboard tack all the time which took me off towards Aemak Islands, Q.—What pass would that take you towards? A.—False Pass. Q.—Was it your intention to go through that pass? A- Yes, sir. Q.—As a matter of fact you never got out? A.—No, not that pass. Q.—When yon were going in to Unimak Pass, did you meet any other cruiser or men-of-war? A.—I did not, but the "Rush" was there. Q.—You did not see the "Rush"? A.—No, but I found out afterwards. Q.—Did the weather get finer before you got to False Pass A.—It dropped calm. Q.—You were then becalmed? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—-There was no wind at all? A.—No wind at all. Q.—During that time did you ree a seal? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And I believe yoi; shot a few? A.—Yes, sir. 20 Q.—How many? A.—I <annot say, but I had some on dee'k when the '•Rush' seiV.ed me. Q.—What happened to you? A.—The "Rush" seized me. O—Do you remember what clay that was? A.—I think it was the 20th Juty. Q.—Who caive on board you from the "Rush"? A.—A lieutenant and an ensign. Q.—What did they do with you? A.—They took me in tow and towed me to Ounalaska. Q.—How long did it take you to go to Ounalaska? A.— 30 We got there the next day. Q.—What was done with you when you got to Ounalaska? A.—Well, I was first tied to the stern of the "Rush" some days and made fast to a buoy there. That's all they did, and they sent me aboard the "Albatross." Q.—What was the "Albatross," a revenue cutter? A.— Fish Commission boat. Q.—And took yon where? A.—Sitka. Q.—Who did they take with you, am' of your crew? A.— All of the crew except the cook were taken to Sitka in the 40 "Albatross." Q.—What became of your vessel? A.—The "Albatross" towed her across. Q.—To where? A.—To Sitka. Q.—So that the vessel and crew all got to Sitka? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—What happened to you up there? A.—I was put in jail. Q.—Were you put in this court house or jury room, or where? A.—I was put in the jail together with Indians, white men and any other person arrested. O.—That was the jail itself? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you were kept there how long? A.—I was there until the 19th December. 0.—Were you tried before the court? A.—In February( when the court set I was up there and there was something read out to me, but I was never tried. Q-—How did you get out? A.—Mr. Maloney, attorney, over to Juneau came over and bailed me out. Q.—I believe they appointed vou a lawyer, did they not? A.—Yes. sir, Mr. Clark. Q.—What happened to him jud about that time? A.—He was put out of the country just before my case came on. Q.—Did you employ him yourself? A.—No, sir. Q.—Who nominated him? A.—The judge. Q.—How did you get ouf of jail? A.—Mr. Maloney came over and bailed me out. 804 (G ustave Hansen—Direct—Cross.) Q.—Did you get away then? A.—I went down to Fort Wrangle, first to Douglas Island, to Juneau and from there to Fort Wrangle. q.—what happened to you then? A.—I fitted out a new vessel. Q.—And did what? A.—Fitted her out and started away from Juneau. Q.—You didn't go back in December to be imprisoned any more.' A.—No, sir. Q.—What happened to the schooner, did you ever get her back? A.—The 'Winnifred"? Q.—Yes, sir. A.—No, sir. Q.—Can you give me an idea what the value of the "Winnifred" is or was? A.—Well, I can't say, I took her and tore up her old cabin and made a new cabin. Q.—How long had you had the "Winnifred" or had an interest in her? A.—Just that time. 20 Q-—That was the first time you had been out in her? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—And when had you got her; obtained an interest in her? A.—Eight in Victoria, the same spring. Q.—And what had you paid for her? A.—Well, it was never settled because I didn't pay the money, that depended on the catch. Q.—You did not pay for her, as a matter of fact. What did you agree to pay for her? A.—I hadn't made any settlement. 30 Q.—Who did you get her from? A.—Mr. Spring. Q.—Was he interested in the catch? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Before you went out, had you put repairs on her? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—What had you done to her? A.—Made a new cabin; caulked her over. Q.—Mr. Spring will be able to give evidence of the value better than you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Of course everything on board the vessel was taken? A.—Everything was taken with her. 4° Q.—What happened to vour crew, were they detained at Sitka? A.—Well, they were— The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Why do you go into that, Mr. Peters, there is no allegation in your claim about the crew, only the mate and master. Mr. Peters:—I shall ask as to the mate then. (To witness): Q.;—What became of the mate, was he detained with you? A.—No, dr, I sent the mate on board the "Pathfinder." I was to go with the "Pathfinder" on the Fair Weather grounds when she lost her captain. Q.—Then the mate was not taken to Sitka? A.—No, sir. Q.—As a matter of fact, did you send the crew home, or were they sent home? A.—They came down by the steamer. Q.—They came right down? A.—No, they were there for some time. 60 Q.—Until the steamer came? A.—Except two. One was paid by the United States; a witness against me. Q.—So the ship was lost and everything in it? A.—Yes, sir. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—When are you going away from here, Captain? A,—• I don't know, sir. Gustave Hansen was recalled further in the case of the "Winnifred," December 22nd, 1896. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson : Q.—I think you have stated, Captain Hansen, that in 1892, when you started out on your voyage you had no intention of entering Behring Sea? Q.—Where did you outfit, Captain Hansen? A.—In Victoria, sir. Q.—For what time did you outfit? A.—It must have been in March. Q.—What time did you sail? A.—I don't remember. Q.—Did you have a log book that year? A.—No, I had a kind of a scrap book. I wasn't compelled to keep it. Q.—Did you keep any log book except the scrap book? A. —Nothing but the scrap book. Q.—And for how long did you outfit? A.—For the summer cruise. Q.—Did you outfit to be gone until the latter part of August? A.—Yes, it would be September; didn't expect to get back before September. Q.—You have been sealing for twelve years? A.—MoreF than that, sir. Q.—Did you ever know a season when seals could be taken in the Fair Weather Grounds or in the North Pacific in July or August? A.—I have been very— Q.—You have had a long experience, Captain, some 12 or 15 years, in sealing, you went sealing away back in 1880 ? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—Now, I want to know from your large experience in sealing whether you ever knew seals to be got in the Fair Weather Grounds or in the North Pacific, outside of Behring Sea, in July or August? A.—Yes, sir, I have got them myself in July. Q.—That is in the hunting grounds for the season? A.— No. Q.—You know the habits of the seal ,so far as a seal.hunter can know them, and that in July and August they are usually on the Pribiloff Idands, are they? A.—Part of them are. Q.—And the seals in Behring Sea are caught from the seals that go out to feed from Pribiloff Islands, are they? A.—Part of them are and part of them come through the Pass. Q.—They cease coming through' the Pass about the 15th of July, do they not? A.—I have seen then come in the month of August. Q.—Not in great numbers? A.—Well, quite a few. Q-—As a matter of fact, you know this to be true, do you not, Captain Hansen, that the seals come there to breed, commence to come early in July and stay through July and August? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—And as they breed the females, pups and young seals, go out to feed in Behring Sea. Is that true? A.—The pups born there—there are a very few attempt to seal any ^distance from shore. Q.—That is where you get the seals while they are breeding there? A.—Yes, sir. L 8o6 (Gustave Hansen—Cross.) Q.—And that is the herding place in the breeding season, in July? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And from that on they stay through August? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Is it not a fact that a great quantity of seals or seal fisheries exist in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, some one said, Captain Hansen, that in regard to some testimony you gave the other day that you spoke of io wanting to correct something. If there is anything in your direct examination that you desire to correct before I proceed, please do so. A.—I was asked if I was at the Pribiloff Islands in 1890, and I think I said "No." I think I was there. Q.—Was there an^hing else in your testimony you desire to explain before I proceed with the cross-examination? A. —No, sir. Q.—Well, you were there on the coast for seals in July, 1892, were you not? A.—Yes, sir. 20 Q.—And had fitted out for a voyage to last until the first of September, a sealing voyage? A.—Yes, sir, sometime in September. Q-.—Having no intention of going into Behring Sea? Do you remember, Captain Hansen, about a month before you were seized you were at an island, at Afognac Island? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—What time were you up there at Afognac Island? A. —I don't remember, sir, must have been in the early part of July, I think. Q.—Early part of July or latter part of June? A.—Somewhere along there; I think in the early part of July. Q.—You had some seals on board, did you not? A.—I had some before. Q.—Before you came into Afognac Island? A.—Yes, sir, a few. Q.—You had about how many that, you had taken outside? A.—I think there was 104. Q.—Was that your entire catch for that season up to that 4° time? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You had caught them from the time you went out, if you went in March, on the coast, on the Fair Weather grounds and all tol^ outside of Behring Sea, 104? A.—I didn't keal before I came up to Afognac Island. Q.—These were the seals you had caught during the season? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you came into Afognac Island in the latter part of June or July, having no intention of going to Behring Sea? 50 A.—No, sir, I was told not to. Q.—And you had seals te the number e>f 104? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What did 3'ou do with them? A.—They went down to Victoria in the "Kate." Q.—Was the "Kate" in that harbor off Afognac Island? A.—She came in there a day or to before I left. Q.—And you sent down your seals by her? You have the same owners? A.—Yes, sir. 60 Q.—Did you find any other ships in that harbor? A.— Yes, sir, there was 12 or 13, I think, altogether. Q.—Now, being at Afognac Island and after you had discharged your seals upon the "Kate," you were in the harbor at Afognac Island, were you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember what that harbor is called? A.— Tonki Bay. Q.—You were then in about what latitude and longitude? discharging the seals, where did you A.—Sailed to the westward. Q.—And when you were at Afognac Island, what is known as the Fair Weather Grounds were to the eastward, were they not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you sail to the westward? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And how long did you sail to the westward? A.—To the Shumagin Idands. Q.—Did you get any seals? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many did you get down there to the Shumagin Islands? A.—I don't remember how many. Q.—Did you get five? A.—More than five. Q.—How many now, captain? A.—I can't tell., Q.—Sealing was not very good, was it, not such as you had been accustomed to? A.—No. Q.—Did you get ten? A.—Yes, I got more than ten. Q.—How many will you swear to? A.—That is more than I can say. Q.—You would not swear whether there was more than 20, would you? A.—I think I got more than 20. Q.—Was it more than 30? Q.—I think I got more than 30 too. Q.—Forty? A.—I can't say exactly how many. Q.—How many times did you lower down in that vicinity? A.—Well, I don't remember that either. Q.—Diel you lower at all, Captain Hansen? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—How many times? A.—I can't tell, sir, I don't remember. Q.—But you are sure you got seals there? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—You didn't have such good seal catching as you were accustomed to, did you? A.—No. Q.—Where did you go from the Shumagin Islands? A. Went down between Sannak. Q.—Still further to the southwest? A.—Between Sannak and Unimak outside the Unimak Pass. Q.—Did you get seals at Sannak and Unimak Pass? A.— Yes. Q.—How many did 3'ou get? A.—I don't remember. Q.—Can you tell within ten? A.—No, I don't know. Q.—What kind of seals did you get there at that time, early in July? A.—Well, there was mixed seals, two and three-year-old seals, some cows. Q.—And you sealed about the Pass there some? A.—Yes. Q.—And Unimak Pass is the usual passage of the seal herd, is it not? A.—Mostly. Q.—That is the highway of the seals in Behring Sea, not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you sealed about there, did you not, to the west and e»ast and to the front of Unimak Pass? A.—Yes. Q.—How many seals did you get? A.—I don't remember, sir. Q.—Well, you gave us some idea of the number of your catch in your direct examination pretty well on several occasions. A.—I think I had 65 or 66 altogether, and I lowered one-e or twice in Behring Sea, of course, the rest I got outside. Q.—You had 60 or 65 altogether, including what you took in Behring Sea afterward? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—In order to fix that, and not knowing the time you entered Behring Sea, how many did you get in Behring Sea' A.—That I can't tell, either, sir, I can not remember. 8o8 io 20 30 (Gustave Hansen—Cross.) Q.—Can you give it about? A.—I had some seals took. ii.—That had been taken in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you have your entire catch on deck that you caught in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How many, can you give me some idea? A.—There might have been 12 or 14. Q.—Now, you had been sealing all around these grounds repeatedly before, had you not? A.—Yes, sir Q.—You knew about the habits of the seals of Behring Sea, the Pribloff Islands being their breeding grounds? A'. —Yes, sir. Q.—You knew about the periods to go to Behring Sea to hunt them in July and August? You knew all that before you started on the voyage? A.:—Oh, yes, sir. Q.—And you outfitted without any intention of entering Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—For this voyage up to the first of September, you are still sure of that? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—When you outfitted you did not intend to enter Behring Sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—So it was not on account of your being told not to.go that you did not intend to go? A.—No, sir. Q.—Now, after leaving Sannak island will you be kind enough to tell me in what direction you went in sailing about Sannak Island? A.—Off here (indicating.) Q.—You have said that you fished around to the east and west of the Unimak Pass for seals? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—And off Unimak Pass in the North Pacific? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And then you went to the eastward, did you not still more to the eastward? A.—I went through the Pass, off here (indicating) to the nor' nor'-east; stood on a starboard tack. Q.—You were off Avatanak. Was that the Island from which you were 20 miles away? A—.No, sir. Q.—You were about 10 or 12 miles off, you said, on direct 40 examination? A.—25 from here (indicating Unimak). Q.—But when you were off Avatanak Island how far were you? A.—When I lowered the boats I was about 12 miles off. Q.—But I am going to bring you to the point when the southeaster came up, where were you then? A.—Just about here (indicating.) Q.—You said on direct examination that you were about 25 miles away from an island. What island was that? A.— Unimake, I think, 25 or 30 perhaps. Q.—Then you caled a consultation of your crew? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—You were about 25 miles off Unimake Island, you say? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Then if you were 25 miles off you were in the pass, were you not? A.—No, sir. Q.—You "were off the Pass, in the waters of the Pass? A.—Yes. I was right about here (indicating). Q.—Right off the pass? A.—Yes. Q.—And how many miles from it? A.—Well, I had been going dnce 10, 11 or 12 o'clock; I tacked ship over here (indicating), I lowered the boats about 12, I think, and was out until three or four when I had to come on board. Q.—When you lowered your boats last you were off Avata* nak Island? ' A.—Yes. Q.—About 25 miles? A.—No, I should not think that far, when I tacked ship it was about 12 or a little over. 5° <5o 8oq (Gustave' Hansen—Cross.) Q.—When.you tacked ship you tacked ship because a southeaster had come up? A.—No, the wind was nor'-nor,- east. Q.—Until what time? A.—Until about three or four o'clock in the afternoon. Q.—Now, tell us where you were when you called your consultation of your crew, just mark it on the map. A.—r I0 (Marking on geodetic survey. (Witness indicates.) Q.—That is where the south eader overtook you? A.— Yes, sir, (indicates in line of 54 and about half an inch to the west of the 16-tth degree on map) about 164-15. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—That de>es not hedp me at all. Can you not give the bearings, Mr. witness, approximate distance? Witness:—Yes; just above here (indicating.) 20 Mr. Dickinson:—How far off from Phimak. Island? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—How did Unimak Island bear? Witness:—About nor'-nor'-west. I could not see it, when the southeaster shut in it got thick. Q.—You knew afterwards about how far it was? A.—The reason I called attention I had the bearings about that Q.—Your wind was in the southwest that druck you? A. 30 —No, southeast. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Excuse me, Mr. Dickinson; this testimony that you have got so far does not give me the slightest assistance. I would like to know whether he was east or west of Unimak Pass when this wind struck him. Was it west of the island, Avatanak, spoken of? Mr. Dickinson:—He has left the Avatanak. 40 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I would like to know about his distances, so I can follow his vessel. Mr. Dickinson:—He gives the latitude exact, and gives the longitude with comparative exactness. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—To enable me to follow his vessel in my mind it would not be of the slighted help to me to know the latitude and longitude. I have got the course of the wind, southeast, now, if he will give me the bearings of the Pass and the bearings of any land he could see, then I could follow him. By Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Give us the bearings, captain? A.—Unimak bore, I think, nor'west by west. Q.—About what distance from it? A.—I had been hove to after I came on board for a little while, and I.didn't know what to do; I must have been hove to for a couple of hours, go and I called all hands and told them of the fact of our position and told them that as yet I knew the bearings of Unimak and would try and get through, but if I laid there a little longer the current might put me out. Q.—What then was your distance from Unimak? A.—It - had shut in already. Q.—Did you take your bearings? What did you tell your crew as to your distance from the shore? A.—I told them what I knew about it. SO 8io (Gustave Hansen—Cross.) io 20 as to your distance? A.—I 40 50 60 Q.—What did you tell them don't remember exactly. Q.—What distance were you? A.—I must have been from fifteen to twenty miles from there, and probably twenty-five or thirty miles from Unimak. Q.—Give the bearings of Unimak from-you? A.—We bore about northwest by north, or nor'nor'west. Q.—About 25 or 30 miles away? A.—Yes. Q.—Now, you say you hove to there for a couple of hours; the wind still kept to the southeast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And increasing all the time? A.—Increasing all the time. Q.—Is there no harbour at Sannak Island? There is a good harbour is there not? A.—I never have been in there, I have been in the harbours in here (indicating). Q.—You are perteetly well aware that there is a good harbour there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you are perfectly well aware that there is a good harbour this side of False Pass, is there not? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What do you mean by "this side"? East or west. Mr. Dickinson:—I mean west of False Pass. Q.—There was a good harbour in there? A.—Yes, I knew two or three good harbours. Q.—Without going around into the Pass was there not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You did not talk about going into False Pass did you? A.—No, sir. Q.—So that there were harbours at Sannak, there was a harbour to the west of False Pass, and a very good one, you say? A.—Yes, a very good harbour. Q.—Well, with a southeast wind you could always sail to the northeast, could you not? A.—I could not carry sail. Q.—Could not carry sail there was so much wind? A.— No, sir. Q.—You could not carry sail to the northeast? A.—No, sir. Q.—To keep your headway? A.—No, sir. Q.—Ordinarily or after a gale of wind I suppose you could saii with a south or east wind to the east, could you not? A. —No, sir. Q.—How many points off the east? A.—Six. Q.—You would have to sail six points off the east? A.— From the wind. Q.—Did you not tell us that the wind hauled into the south? A.—After I came into Behring Sea, that is what I said. Q.—Did you not say it hauled to the east continually? A. —After I got into Behring Sea? Q.—It did not haul to the south in there? A.—Not before I was through the Pass. Q. -It was a southeast gale? A.—Yes, sprung up from the southeast; it didn't start to haul to the southward before, I think, the second day. Q.—Now, in the Pass itself, are there no harbours behind Ashmiak Island? A.—Not for a southeaster. Q.—No harbour behind Tagalda Island? A.—No, sir. Q.—Is not this fair harbour north of Tagalda? A.—Not to my knowledge, I never have been there. Q.—Why is it no good? A.—I should not think it would be, there would be too much tide there. I have been here at Akan Island also at Akutan. Q.—In the running into Behring Sea, what course did you take running through Unimak Pass? A.—I hove to immediately, with double reefed foresail. Q.—Where did you heave to with a double-reefed foresail? A.—Just about here (indicating). Q.—Just inside the Pass? A.—Yes, hardly through Pass. Q.—Captain Hansen, could you not have kept out Behring Sea? A.—Not that time. Q.—You have been a seaman how many years? A.— since I was a boy. Q-—You did not want to go in, did you? A.—No, sir. Q-—Well, you hove to right out or inside of the Sea, at the end of the Pass, did you? A.—Yes. Q.—From there where did you go? A.—I didn't go anywhere, before the gale was over I had drifted up to here (indicating). Q-—How many miles did you drift? A.—I think it was the third day after I came through. Q-—You were clear up to the Pribiloff Island? A.—Nowhere near it, I suppose she drifted about 20 miles in 24 hours. Q-—About how many miles did she drift in the northwest? A.—Might have drifted from 90 to 100 miles. Q.—Then the wind turned into a southerly, I think you - said? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How did you come to drift to the northwest with a 3 southerly wind? A.—She made pretty near a dead drift. Q.—But you say you drifted to the north west about 40 miles a day, did you not? A.—I don't think she drifted that much, about 30 miles in 24 hours. Q.—Positivety bearing in her drift to the northwest? A. —Nor,-nor'-west to west. Q.—Now, after you got through drifting where did you go? A.—Put her to the wind. Q.—Was it east or west wind? A.—The wind, I think, when I got the main sail on her, the first time, I think the wind was about south southwest. Q.—With a sputh southwest wind after having drifted up there could you make the pass? A.—No, sir, not from where I was. Q.—You could not make it by tacking, could you? A.—I suppose I could by tacking. Q.—Which way did you sail after drifting up here north northwest, which way .did you sail when you could sail and did make sail? A.—I put her to the wind. Q.—In which direction? A.—Put her on the wind on the starboard tack. Q.—And where did you fetch up on that tack? A.—I fetched up close by the Amack Island. Q.—How far up by it? A.—I came on the wind then, south southwest, was heading for south southeast, which would pull me right up here. (Indicating.) Q.—To Amack Island? A.—No, I was carrying all sails then, I could see the volcano—Shishaldin. Q.—You could see that. What else could you see? A.— I saw Amak. Q.—About how far off did you bear from Amak? A.— Amak bore about east or east northeast. Q.—And how far distant? A.—About 18 or 20 miles. - Q.—And what did you do then? A.—I had to lie there, it was calm. Q.—Did you anchor? A.—No. Q.—Did yon drift along anyway? A.—No, it was very smooth then up there, I lowered a boat and went out hunting. 8l2 IO 20 30 40 50 60 (Gustave Hansen—Cross.) Q.—You lowered a boat and went out hunting seals? A. —Yes. Q.—Did you not say in your direct examination that you ran down to False Pass? A.—1 did not say False Pass. Q.—Did you not run to False Pass? A.—I went out by it. Q-—How near did you go to False Pass? A.—When I got here (indicating) it dropped calm. Q,—How far were you off from False Pass? A.—About 20 or 25 miles probably. Q.—Did you change your position before that? A.—No, sir, not before the "Rush" came and took me away. Q.—Amak Island was in plain sight? A.—Yes, but it was foggy there sometimes. Q.—Was the line outside of the volcano, outside of the Unimake Island in sight? A.—I seen it. Q.—You saw enough to know you were off False Pass? A. —Yes. Q.—You could see enough to know that you were off False Pass, and you were near enough to recognize Amak Island? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you take any bearings? A.—I think I did. Q.—At the time? A.—I think I did. Q.—Did you know? A.—Yes, I always do take bearings in cases like that. Q.—How many seals did you get in Behring Sea? A.—I don't remember, sir, I think the day I got seized I got 12 or 14. Q.—How many had you before? A.—I don't remember. Q.—How many had you before that? A.—I don't know that we lowered more than two days. Q.—How long did you lie there? A.—I was two days becalmed when the "Rush" came. Q.—Now, I think I understand you, Captain Hansen, that when you got up to Sitka that a complaint was filed against your ship and the court appointed somebody to defend the ship? A.—Yes, sir. q.—Whom did you say the court appointed? A.—A man by the name of Clark. Q.—Did you ever hear of a man by the name of Hughes? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you employ Hughes? A.—No, I didn't employ him; I understood he came up there to work on the "Coquit- lam." Q.—Came up from where? A.—I don't know whether from here or Seattle. Q.—Did Clark appear for you in any way? A.—No, I was never called up. Q.—Did Clark appear for the ship? A.—No, he never had a chance to, he got sent away from court himself. Q.—But somebody else did appear for the ship, did they not? A.—Hughes was supposed to, I don't know whether he did or not, he came in to see me one time, in here. Q.—Do you know about any answer in that case yourself, through Hughes; did you sign it? A.—No, sir, I don't remember any. Q.—As master of the ship? A.—That I can't remember. Q.—Did you not, through Hughes, intervene to defend the ship? A,—Hughes came over— Q.—Did you? A.—No, sir, I did not. I Q.—The court did not appoint Mr. Hughes, did it? A.— No, sir. Q.—Who did appoint Hughes? A.—He was sent up from down here. Q.—Seattle, was he not? was an American lawyer. Q.—Did you not know where Hughes think he came from Seattle. Q.—Or was he sent up from Victoria? A.—That I cannot tell, but he came from somewhere down here. Q.—What makes you say the court appointed a man by the name of Clark to defend this ship; were you in court; elid you hear anything Of the kind? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You heard the court say? A.—The judge asked if I had a lawyer. I told him "No." Q.—Was this for the ship or for yourself? A.—Well, I don't know, there was nothing special said about what I was there for. Q.—You were in jail and brought up, but you don't know what you were there for? A.—I was there, I suppose, for being seized. . Q.—Ever been in court before? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—A great many times? A. —Well, I had been in San Francisco one time. Q.—You are a pretty intelligent man, Captain Hansen, been knocking around and been in court before—do you mean to say that after your ship was seized, you, as mader of the ship, and for Mr. Spring, did nothing about defending that ship? A.—I could not do nothing in jail. Q.—Did they refuse to send a letter out? A.—No. Q.—Did you ask to send a. letter out? A.—No. Q.—Did you ask to see a lawyer? A.—Well, I did afterwards. Q.—And who was the lawyer? A.—That was after court had adjourned. Q.—Who did you see? A.—Maloney. Q.—He was not the man appointed by the court? A.- sir. Q.—Is Maloney up there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, you put in an answer, did you not, as master of the schooner "Winnifred," for yourself and Charles Spring of Victoria, and you swore to it in that case? A.—I don't remember that. Q.—Maloney didn't do anything for you, did he? A.—I don't think he done anything, he went to Juneau and got bail for me. Q.—How long were you confined? A.—I don't remember exactly the date they put me in, but I stayed there until I think, the 19th, the 18th or 19th. Q.—But as early as the 19th of August, did you not put in an answer through Hughes and demand the restitution of the ship? A.—I don't know whether I did, but if I did I thought I was entitled to it. Q.—Do you not remember Mr. Hughes bringing you an answer that you swore to, as early as the 19th of August. A.—I don't think so. Q—As early as the 19th of August, 1892? A.—I only saw Hughes once. Q.—Now, do you remember in the court when you were there that they called the names of the owners wrong—let 6o me refresh your memory: Do you not remember of hearing in that court there that William Henry Dyer and Robert Sharp, of Victoria, British Columbia, were the owners of the "Winnifred." A.—I think there was some talk of that. Q.—You told Hughes that was wrong, and that Charles Spring was the owner? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you put in a statement and swore to it, did you not, that Charles Spring was the owner? A-—Perhaps I did, I am not certain, 8i4 (Gustave Hansen—Cross.] A.—Yes, io 20 40 SO 60 Q.—And claimed the ship for Spring as master? sir, I think very likely. Q.—Where was this man Clark, did you see him? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Did he come near you? A.—After the court was done the first day he came down to see me. Q.—Did you ever see him again? A.—No. Q.—And when did you see Hughes, the same day or the day after? A.—I saw Hughes long before this. Q.—Long before you saw Clark? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You saw Hughes and had made the statement that Spring was the owner before you saw Clark? A.—If I ever did, yes. Q.—If you ever did see Clark? A.—No, if I ever made the statement. Q.—Well, tell me somehting more about Clark? You have seen Hughes before this, before the court appointed Clark? A.—Yes. Q.—What did the court want to appoint Clark for when you had a lawyer? A.—Hughes was not there when the court sat, and the court sat again in November. Q.—But in August, Hughes was there in August? A.—• Yes, dr, I think he was there in August^ but I don't remember for certain what time he was there. Q.—Now just tell me what was said about Clark by anybody? A.—Well, I heard the district attorney had showed him up in court. Q.—So you thought it best, Captain Hansen, to say that the court appointed Clark because you saw he was treated badly up there. A.—No, sir, he was indicted for a case there himself and my case came up the first one. Q.—Do you mean your personal case or the ship's case? A.—I don't remembeT exactly. Q.—This thing that happened to Clark was long after Hughes had been there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And Hughes was there taking care of this matter ol the "Winnifreel" all the time? A.—No, he wasn't there. Q.—Were you not here in Victoria when testimony was taken in the "Winnifred" case? A.—Here in Victoria? Q.—Yes, when Mr. Spring was concerned? A.—Here in this court? Q.—No, this is the Assembly room, I don't mean here—let us get. back to the time—were you in any court after the seizure of the "Winnifreel" and after you were in Sitka, were you in any court here in Victoria when testimony was taken before the United States consul and Mr. Spring was concerned? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you ever see Hughes here? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you report your seizure to Mr. Spring? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How? A.—By letter. Q.—How soon after you arrived at Sitka? A.—Well, 1 don't remember dr. Q.—Well, pretty promptly after your arrival at Sitka? A. —Yes, sir, a short time after. Q.—Now, let us see if you remember the name of the firm. Do you remember Hughes, Hastings & Steadman? A.—1 remember Hastings I think coming up to Sitka. Q.—What was he there for? A.—I don't know. Q.—Have anything to do with the "Winnifred" case? A —I had a talk with him in the marshal's office. Q.—You recognized him as the lawyer for the "Winnifred" against the United States? A.—Yes, sir. q.—Now, was it not Hughes, Hastings & Steadman? A.— I didn't see Steadman. Q.—You saw Hastings? A.—Yes. Q.—Then you had heard of the firm of Hughes, Hastings & Steadman? A.—No, sir, I didn't hear any Steadman. Q.—Hughes and Hastings? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Both came to Sitka in this case? A.—No. Q—Hughes came? A.—Hughes came first and then he went down and sometime after that I think Hastings came up. Q.—In the same matter? A.—They had the Coquitlam case too. Q-—He was there in your matter, was he not. and took your statement? A.—I suppose so. Q.—Did he bring any letter from Spring? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you not know j'ourself that Spring put in an answer when Hastings got there? A.—I don't know that, sir. Q—Do you know whether Spring offered to defend the case through Hastings? A.—I think it was Hughes up there that told me that he was to look after the 'Winniferd" case. Q.—And Hastings came afterwards? A.—Hadings came afterwards. Q.—Now, then were you tried before a court or jury? A. —No, sir. Q.—You were let go, were you not? A.—No, sir. Q.—What became of you? A.—They never allowed my case to come up. Q.—You got away in some way? A.—I got bailed out by ,0 parties in Juneau. Q.—Do you know what became of the rest? A.—I heard afterwards. Q.—Who went your bail? A.—Two parties on Douglas Island. Q.—And Hughes got them for bail, did he? A.—-No, Maloney got the bail. Q.—The attorney you have spoken of? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How long were you in jail ? A.—I don't remember exactly the day I was put in, but I was there until the 18th or 40 19th of December. Q.—How long were you in jail? A.—I was there from the day after the "Albatross" left. Q.—How many days were you in jail? A.—I can't tell, sir. Q.—Two? A.—Tt must have been from the 20th of August to the 18th or 19th of December. Q.—When were you bailed out, in December? A.—Yes, sir. Q_What sort of a place is this jail? A.—Well, it was not much of a place. Q.—Whereabouts was it situated in Sitka? A.—The court house is on top of the upper story, and the jail and Marshal's office is down below. Q.—Were there gratings on the windows? A.—Yes. Q.—And you were put in the place below, were you? —Yes, sir. Q.—Did you have anything to eat? A.—Yes, sir, I had what they furnished us there. Q.—Pretty good, was it? A.—Well, I didn't starve. Q.—Have*a place to sleep? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Comfortable place? A.—About as good as could be expected in a jail. Q.—Were you put in a cell, captain? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Which dde of the entrance of the jail were you on? A. —There is a long room and there was cells only on one side. Q.—Can vou tell which side as you go in that is on? A,— On the left*hand side. 8i6 io 20 (Gustave Hansen—Cross—Re-direct.) Q.—As you enter the building was it on the left side or the right side? A.—There is only one entrance. q.—which side were you put in, the left side or the right side? A.—The left side. Q.—Now, captain, did you hear anything up there in court any complaint agaiust vou for raiding the property of ihe United States and the Pribyloff Islands? A.—I did. Q.—Did that have anything to do with your confinement? ' Mr. Peters:—I submit that if there is any transaction of that kind the record of this prooeeeling should prove; it cannot be proven by vive voce evidence. They have that record in their hands, they must have it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—My impression is that he was asked on direct examination about the charge he was committed on. Mr. Peters:—The simple fact was brought out that he had been put in jail. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:--He was asked whether the court employed counsel for him. Of course the employment of counsel by the court is a matter of record, all that sort of thing is a matter of record. Mr. Dickinson:—I jdeld to the intimation of your honour, and will not press the question. ,0 By Mr. Dickinson: Q.—I will ask you this question: You have stated that on two separate occasions you raided the Pribiloff Islands, have you not, the seal grounds? A.—Yes, sir. . Q.—But this was some time before the seizure of the "Winnifred?" A.—Yes, sir. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Now, Captain Hansen, you have been asked several 4° questions to show whether you intended to enter Behring Sea or not. You went into Tonki Bay? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On Afognac Island? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Why did you go there? A.—For water. Q.—Water for the ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—As a matter of fact where were you bound on that voyage, were you bound for any particular place? A.—No, dr. Q.—Were yon there to get water at the time you went into Afognac? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—Did you take water there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How long were you there? A.—I don't remember, sir, two days probably three days, I ain't sure. Q.—And were you there for any other purpose except to get water? A.—No, not especially, then lots of schooners went in there for water. Q.—Was it a place much frequented by schooners for that purpose? A.—1 believe some of the schooners were going to transfer some of their skins. Q.—But I ask you the question: Was it much frequented for the purpose of getting water? A.—Yes, sir, a gooel place for water. Q.—I think you stated that at the time you went there there were some thirteen or fourteen schooners there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—American and British, or all American or all British? A.—I don't think there was any American. Q.—So that you had plenty of company there? A.—Yes, Q.—The schooner "Kate" was there? A,—Yeis. So 60 Q.—Was she owned by Mr. Spring know. Q.—He managed her at all events? A.—Yes. Q-—And the "Winniferd" also was managed by Mr. Spring? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you sent him some skins that you had in the "Kate?" A.—Yes, sir, sent them home in the "Kate." Q.—Did you do anything else at Tonki Bay except transfer the skins? A.—No, sir. Q.—Was there any change of provisions between the ves sels? A.—No, sir, not to'my knowledge. 1 got a case of corned beef from the schooner Venture, which I gave her a little tobacco for. Q.—Who did she belong to—was she a Victoria vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—A British vessel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—A. sealer? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you gave them some what for it? A.—Some tobacco. Q.—Was it anything uncommon to exchange those things between the ships in that way? A.—They generally help each other when they can. Q.—You wanted corned beef and he wanted tobacco? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—You gave him the tobacco and he gave you the corned beef? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that was all the exchange that took place between you and any ship? A.—Well, I think there was a schooner there which gave me a sack of potatoes. Q.—What schooner was that? A.—I don't remember which one it was. Q.—A British sealer? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What did you give for the sack of potatoes? A.—I gave them nothing; they made me a present of it. Q.—Any other exchange of civilities between you and 40 other ships? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you have a log on the "Winnifred"? A.—No, sir, only a scrap book. Q.—You didn't keep a log? A.—No, sir. Q.—Have you got any of your books? A.—No, sir, the ' captain of the "Rush" took it from me. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I would like to learn, Mr. Peters, why he might not have come in the lee of Ugomak Island when he entered the Pass? Mr. Peters:—At the same tune I wish to point out to the court that from my point of view it is perfectly immaterial whether he intended to go to Behring Sea or not, because he has not been prosecuted as he ought to have been prosecuted under the modus vivendi. Mr. Dickinson:—The record cross-examination covereet this ground. By Mr. Peters: Q.—The judge wants you to tell him why you did not go in under the lee of Ugomak Island at the entrance of Unimak Pass? A.—Bcause there was no shelter there with a southeaster, sir. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is there no anchorage back there? 8i8 (Gustave Hansen—Re-direct.) Witness:—There is a very strong tide there, and the island itself is long and narrow in the northwest and southeast direction, so there would not be any shelter. By Mr. Peters:— Q.—Beside that there is a very strong tide? A.—Yes Q.—At what rate does the tide run? A.—I was once in 10 the "Alexander" for a day and a half trying to get through there in a northwester. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is there anything in his evidence from which the court can draw any inference whether he was taken inside the marine league or outside. Mr. Peters:—We have the mod distinct evidence. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I 20 mean from his evidence. Mr. Peters:—He was taken outside of the marine league as shown by the log of the vessel which took him. Mr. Dickinson:—We examined for the purpose of showing that your Honour. Whatever he says about it we contend that the testimony in cross-examination shows he was within the territory of the United States. Mr. Peters:—As the point has come up I shall ask the wit- 30 ness— Mr. Dickinson:—What this witness says about it will make no difference. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I merely asked you whether there was any reference to that question. I do not intend to have you re-open the evidence. Mr. Peters:—My impression is that there is; but as the direct examination has not been printed, I do not think when 40 the question has been raised that we should be compelled to leave it at all in doubt. I would like to ask the question how far to the nearest land he was when he was seized. Mr. Dickinson:—I shall insist on the argument in this case your Honour that the vessel was properly seized within the jurisdiction of the* United States. Mr. Peters:—1 claim she was not, and I want to know the distance. That is material. 50 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—My impression is, that there is nothing in direct evidence bearing on that point, that is the reason I asked the queston. Re-direct examination resumed by Mr. Peters: Q.—I will just put this question to you, Captain Hansen. When you were seized how far were you from the nearest land? State about how far. A.—About 18 or 20 miles sir. Q.—In order to make it clear, show me again on the chart go your position when seized? A.—I was about there. Q.—Just about where. How did Amak Island bear at the time vou were seized? A.—Between east and east and northeast. * Q.—And about what distance? A.—18 or 20 miles. Q.—Can you give me the latitude and longitude? A.—I have nothing on this map to measure it with; it is about latitude 55. Q.—Was Amak Island the nearest land? A,—Yes, sir. Q.—And vou cannot figure it out without your dividers? A.—No. Q.—You were east, northeast, and about 18 miles distant? A.—Yes. Q.—Was it clear weather when you were seized? A.—Yes. dr. Q.—Could you actually see land when you were seized? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—So that you have no doubt about your position ? A.— I was inside of that; I was not closer to the shore than 18 miles. Q.—At the time you were seized could you actually see any other land? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—One was the Volcano? A.—Yes, dr, Schickaladin Island. Q.—What other land could you see? A.—I could see Amack. Q.—And what other? A.—Right down to False Pass. Q.—So you could see other lands? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I dc not think you say in your answer, Mr. Peters, that this ship was seized outside of the jurisdictional waters of the United States—you simply allege that she was seized in the Behring Sea. Mr. Peters:—We did'not think it was necessary to say further. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The Modus Viveneli distinctly provided that if the vessel was seized inside the jurisdictional waters of the United States, she should be taken to the United States courts. Mr. Peters:—She is to be handed over to British authority Che Commissioner on the part of the United States:—No; if she was seized outside of jurisdictional waters of the United States she was handed over to British authorities. Mr. Peters:—I will read what the statement of claim does say. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It simply says "Illegally seized." Mr. Peters:—I have here the statement of the United States authorities setting down exactly where the vessel was seized I do not think au3' technical objection should be raised. Mr. Dickinson:—We do not raise any question of technical pleadings against my learned friend. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I suppose not, but the Commissioners might, or the Umpire might; in even' other case we have got mentioned the precise place of seizure. Mr. Peters:—I may mention that we could not put the precise place of seizure in our Statement of Claim because, at the time I drew the Statement of Claim, I had not a record of the proceedings, nor any information whatever before me. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I merely called your attention to it. Mr. Peters:—As a matter of fact I applied, long ago, through the proper authorities, to obtain the correspendence and the statement of the logs of the American ships with regard to this very matter. I did not get that correspondence until a short time ago—long after our pleadings were drawn 820 (Gustave Hansen—Re-oross.) —and, therefore, with regard to the case of the Winifred, we were to a great extent, absolutely in ignorance of the facts— that is the exact nature of the facts—we practically drew our Statement of Claim in the dark. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I merely asked you for your own consideration, whether the petition should not contain a statement of where the vessel was seized. You can proceed with the examination so far as I am concerned. Mr. Peters:—The Winifred was driven into Behring Sea by stress of weather, and on 27th July she was illegally seized, nd her officer and crew illegally arrested. That is what is stated in the pleading; that states, so far as Great Britain is concerned, that the seizure was illegal—it could not have been illegal if she had been caught catching seals within the three mile limit. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—When you speak of miles, do you mean nautical or statute miles? A.—Nautical miles. Q.—I asked you on cross-examinatnon what the bearings were that you took on bringing up near Amak Island, and you said you did not remember. Do you remember now? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—You renmirrber now that you did take bearings? A.— I did take bearings. Q.—And you took 3'our disctances? A.—Yes. Q.—You remember that now distinctly? A.—I had to put down my position every night. Q.—You saw with vonr naked eye all this land? A.— Yes. Q.—Now I want to ask something about Tonki Bay. Why did you tell Mr. Peters that you did not remember you took an^hing off another ship there, and then he had to ask you again if you did not get provisions? A.—That is a thing I never told before I was asked. Q.—You never mentioned it before ? A.—No. Q.—Now, I want to ask you a question or two about these little courtesies that passed between you. Do you remember the names of the ships that were in that bav? A.—The "Brenda," the "Libbe," the "Annie C. Moore," the "Sea Lion." the "Umbrina," the '-'Carmelite," the "Venture," the "Kate," the "Favourite," the "Maud S.," I think the "Walter Earle," and the "Arities"—that is about all I remember. Q.—Now you had I present of a sack of potatoes you have to.- us? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Who gave you the corned beef? A.—Thomas Owens, the Captain of the "Venture." Q.—Have you told us all you got? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you get any salt. Sealing salt? A.—I do not remember. Q.—Let me refresh your memory. Did you get any salt from the "Venture?" A.—1 do not remember that. Q.—Did you get any coal from the "Venture?" A.—Coal! No. Q.—You got no coal? A.—No. Q.—Did you not get 20 bags of salt from the "Venture?" A.—20 bags of salt? Q.—Yes. A.—No, that would have been pretty near a load for the schooner. Q.—Or it would be a pretty big load even for a 13-tonner, wouldn't it? And you did not get any salt? A.—No, sir, not to my recollection, I do not remember, 821 30 (Gustave Hansen—Re A. Reppen—Direct.) rot as much as 10 Q.—You would remember if you had sacks of salt? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—Did you not get 10 sacks of salt from the "Venture?" A.—No. Q-—Will you swear to that positively? A.—I don't think I got any. Q.—Will you swear that you did not get 10 sacks of salt in io that harbour from one of those British ships? A.—I do not remember getting any salt at all there. Q.—Will you swear that you did not get it? A.—I cannot, it is quite a long time ago. Q,—Will yon swear that you did not get a quantity of coal? A.—I do not remember getting any coal. Q.—Will you swear that you did not? A.—Well, that would have been more likely for me to get that salt. Q.—Well did you get it? A.—I do not think I did. Q.—Did you get anything from the "Favourite?" A.— 20 No, sir. Q.—These ships were all in there, and they were all sealing ships? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On the way home? A.—No, sir. Q.—They were about to sail for home, were they not? A.— No, sir. Q.—The "Kate" was going? A.—I do not know the reason why she did go home; they probably all were warned not to go into the Behring Sea. Q.—So far as you spoke to the ships in that harbour they were going south? A.—No, I think some of them went to the Copper Islands. Q.—Did you over see any of them sealing after that? A. I do not remember. Q.—But the "Kate" was the same owner as yours, and fitted out about the same time as you did? A.—Yes, but she was on the West Coast before I left here. Q.—And she was on her way home? A.—She went home. 4° The witness was not further examined. SO 6o Alexander Reppen was recalled, December 21, 18.96, by Great Britain, by consent out of order, relative to the "Pathfinder," of 1890. Claim No. 21. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Mr. Reppen, I think you were examined here before? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were mate on the "Pathfinder" in 1890, were you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—In that year did you meet with an accident? A.—Ye*s, Ave carried away our keel. Q.—When was that? A.—In the month of March. Q.—Where wereyou at the time? A.—We were up to the southward of Cape Flattery. Q.—You were to the southward of Cape Flattery when the accident happened? Did you put into any port? A.—We put into Neah Bay. Q.—What did you go there for? A.—For to repair. Q.—Did you get the repairs done? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—After you had the repairs done did anything happen? A.—We were ready to go awav next morning when the re- 822 (A. Reppen—Direct.) venue cutter "Corwin" came along in the evening and seized us in the morning. Q.—What was the next thing that the revenue cutter did? A.—An officer came on board mornim: A.— A.- IO 20 it? inswer 30 50 60 Q.—Was it in the afternoon or in the Early in the morning. Q-—Were you on deck when the seizure took place? Yes, sir. Q-—Just as briefly as you can tell us, what was said and done by the officers? A.—The officer went to the cabin to examine the papers and he came on deck and the captain came on deck and told me that they had seized us. Q,—Your own captain? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Told you the officer had seized you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Well, go on. A.—The officer from the "Corwin" went on board the cutter and sent a crew of men with a tow line on board, made fast to us and towed us to Port Townsend. Q.—Was there any conversation that you heard take place —were there any orders or instructions given that you heard about heaving your anchor, or anything of that kind? A.— The same officer came on board again and told us to heave our anchor and we were bound for Port Townsend. Q.—Was there any answer? A.—Answer to tl went and told the men to heave up the anchor. Q.—Did you do that at once, or was there any before you did that? . A.—Not any that I know of. Q.—You were instructed to heave your anchor and you did? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Then what did-they do? A.—Then they towed us out of the harbour and took us to Port Townsend. Q.—Just before the start on your voyage to Port Townsend, what became of the ship's papers? A.—I don't know.- Q.—You don't know whether they were left on board that ship or not? A.—No. . Q.—Will you tell me what reason, if any, the officer of the "Corwin" gave for the seizure, that you heard? A.— No, I can't tell, I wasn't in the cabin at the time* the papers were examined or taken, I don't know whether they were taken or only examined. Q.—Did the officer of the cutter, in your hearing, give any reason why he seized you? A.—No, he never said anything * to me. Q.—You don't know what he said to the captain? A.— No. Q._Wh0 was the captain of the "Pathfinder'' at that time? A.—Captain Marwin. Q.—Where is he? A.—He is dead now. Q,_When did he die? A.—He died after the season was over in Victoria. Q.—Did the captain ever tell you on what ground you were seized? A.—No, he told me that we were seized, that is all. q, Did he tell you the reason why you were seized? A. —No, nothing. O—You were taken where? A.—Port Townsend. Q.—How far was that from Neah Bay, about? A.—(>0 or 70 miles. „T I i Q—How long were you going there? A .-We started from Neah Bay at 6 o'clock in the morning, and came to Port Townsend about 12 o'clock in the forenoon. EHH Q_What happened; after you got to Port Townsend what was done with the vessel ? A .-We anchored at Port Tovn- send and thev anchored close along side of us. Q_Was there anyone put on board your vessel'. A.— Yes. there was an officer. Q.—After you got to Port Townsend did the officer remain on board? A.—He remained on board. Q.—What happened? A.—He remained on board and I asked him—some of the men wanted to go ashore, and he said, no, better remain on board. Q.—How long did this state of affairs continue, how long were you kept there? A.—We were kept there that day and io (he day following ,and the day after that we were released. Q.—Was there anything said to you at the time you were' released, did you hear the instructions to release given? A. —No. The captain was on shore and he came aboard the next day and said we were free now. Q.—So you were kept there for the days you have mentioned? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will 3'ou describe how that happened? A.—I heard something about a telegram from Washington to release us. Q.—You were released? A.—Yes, sir. 20 Q.—And you went about your business, did you? A.—We went to Victoria. Q.—Straight? A.—Sailed into Victoria. Q.—What had 3'ou been doing before that? A.—We was lying there waiting. Q.—In what visage Avert you engaged? A.—We were on gageel in .1 sealing trip. Q.—What number of boats had you? A-—We had five boats and a stern be>at. Q.—White men? A.—White men. 3° Q.—Was, or was not the ground about Neah Bay a suitable ground for seal fishing at that- time of the year? A.— Yes; sir. Q.—When you were taken to Port Townsend, that was some sixty miles away, was it not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was that in the course of seals or not? A.—No, it was away out of seals. Q.—So you were taken off the sealing ground? A.—Yes, sir. ao Q*—How far from the sealing ground was Neah Bay, where you were anchored? A.—Oh, about 20 miles. Q.—What was your intention about that time, yourself- and the captain's, if you had not been interfered with? A.— We were ready for to start to sea again, we had repaired our filler. Q.—What were you going to do when you got to sea? A. —Well, we were going to lower boats as soon as we got outside of Cape Flattery. r0 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Were you on a sealing voyage Witness:-—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Simply went in there to make repairs? Witness:—Yes, sir. Q.—You intended to seal again, did you. if you~had not 60 been interefered with? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And when you went to Port Townsend you were taken off the sealing ground? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Then instead of sealing any more you went to Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That is all that took place; the whole story? A.— Yes, the whole story. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: 824 (A. Reppen—Cross.) Q.—When did you next leave Victoria after being in Port Townsend? A.—I left Victoria a week after. Q.—For what trip? A.—Started out sealing again. Q.—A northern trip? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you go to Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were in Victoria outfitting, in the meantime, I suppose? A.—No, we ha our outfit. Q.—You had your outfit for Behring Sea over in Neah Bay? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did not need anything to go back to Victoria for? A. —No, we had our outfit for the coast, but not for Behring Sea. Q.—Then before you went to Behring Sea you had to come back to Victoria? A.—No, we took our outfit on the west coast. Q.—You would not have gone again into Victoria at all A.—No, sir. 20 Q-—Did you outfit while in Victoria instead of going to the west coast?? A.—We went to the west coast and got the rest of the outfit. Q.—After you left Victoria? A.—After we left Victoria. Q.—What did you do in Victoria for a week? A.—Got our rudder better secured—our tiller. Q.—That was after you came from Port Townsend? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—What did you do to your rudder after you got to Victoria? A.—We had it made out of iron; we had wood be- 3° fore; made the tiller entirely out of iron. Q.—Did you do an3d:hing to your tiller while you were lying over in the harbour at Port Townsend? A.—No. Q.—Are you sure about that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Then if you repaired your rudder over in Neah Bay it was just temporary repair? A.—Well, we considered that it would have been all right. Q.—Would you have gone up into Behring Sea with it in that condition? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—Then the repairs that you did in Victoria were not 4° necessary to make the trip to Behring Sea? A.—Not if we had been left alone. Q.—Was the "Viva" in Neah Bay when the "Pathfinder" was lying there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—She was owned by Mr. Munsie also? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the "Pathfinder" was owned by Mr. Munsie? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—Did the "Viva" know you were in there? A.~We ' came in first and she came in afterwards, and the captain co came on board. Q.—Did she know you were in there? A.—-lust happened to meet. Q.—Did she help you repair the ruddci ? A.—No, we had it already finished then. Q.—When the "Vica" came you had it already finished? A.—Yes, sir. Q,—You say you were going to leave the same day that the "Corwin" took you? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—What time of day did the "Corwin" take you? A.— Early in the morning, about 5 o'clock. Q.—And you were going to leave some time during that day? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—At night, or don't you remember? A.—No, going to leave in the morning. Q.—Was the rudder broken, or the rudder chains—tell the Commissioners what Avas the matter with the rudder. A.— The tiller Avas, of course, loose and the rudder head. 6o Q.—Was there anything the matter Ayith the rudder except the tiller? A.—Only the tiller. Q.—The rudder proper was all right? A.—The rudder Avas all right. Q.—Did it take you_a week to repair the rudder after you got here? A.—Yes, it took about a week before we got out. Q.—To repair your tiller? A.—Yes, he took our rudder out. Q-—Then the "Pathfinder" was hauled up on the beach here after she got to Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that was all you repaired, the tiller? A.—Yes, sir. Q,—How long had you been sealing? A.—Sealing for 10 years. Q.—How long had the "Pathfinder" been sealing before she was taken by the "Corwin ?" A.—About a month and a half. Q.—She had some into Victoria once before for repairs, had she not, the same season? A.—I can't tell. Q.—Was she not here on the 17th day of February for repairs? A.—Yes she came into Victoria, once or twice. Q.—What was the matter with her that she came to Victoria on the 17th of February? A.—It was the same thing. Q.—Just the tiller out of order? A.—We got a new band; the band Avas broke that goes around the rudder head. Q.—And where the tiller went into the rudder head, it was loose? A.—It was loose. Q.—You came into Victoria for repairs on that account? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you were seized and went to Port Townsend, from Port Townsend to Victoria, and then went on the beach and repaired the tiller? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you get a new one there? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Then you went off sealing to the north coast and into Behering Sea after that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, witness, would you not'have come here with the "Pathfinder" A.—We had orders to come here. Q.—Did you have orders the first time or second time? A. —Not the first time, the second time. Q.—Who ordered you the second time to come to Victoria? A.—The captain said we had orders to come to Victoria. Q.—Orders from the owner? A.—It must be so. Q.—When did the captain get these orders? A.—The same day that we got released. Q.—Then Mr. Munsie, or whoever the managing owner was, communicated to Port Teiwnsend with the captain and or dered him here to Victoria? A.—I don't know who it was. Q.—Whoever it was, was that the fact? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, did Mr. Munsie know that the boat was ouf. of repair, or whoever the managing owner was? A.—I don't know. Q.—Did you see the orders? A.—No. Q.—What was the boat ordered to Victoria for. For repairs? A.—I believe the captain told me he had got orders to come to Victoria. Q.—For repairs? A.—No, he didn't tell me Q.—You were in Port Townsend one day? we came and the other day. Q.—You were in Port Townsend two days? Q.—How long would it have taken you to have got back to Neah Ba3' or Cape Flattery from Port Townsend? A.—It all depends upon the wind. Q.—You came over here, did you not? A.—Yes, sir- Q.—You remember what wind you had? A.—From Port Townsend to Victoria? that. A.—The day IO 826 (A. Reppen—Cross—Re-direct.) Q.—Yes? A.—We only took ten hours. Q.—You could have gone out to the Straits with the same wind, could you not? A.—I don't know how the wind was, it was calm. Q.—If you had wind how long would it have taken you to go up to Neah Bav? A.—A fair wind would take 24 hemrs. Q.—What boat 'were you on in 1889? A.—The "Kate." Q.—What boat in 1888? A.—I was in the "Pathfinder." Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—You say you had orders from the captain to go right. bac¥ to Victoria? A.—Yes, sir, the captain told me so. Q—When did you get these orders? A.—I don't know, I never asked him. Q.—How long did you say it took you to come to Victoria? A.—I think it was about ten hours. Q.—What was the distance? A.—About~40 miles. Q.—What did you come to Victoria for? A.—I don't 20 know. Q.—You went out again as soon as— A.—I say we. laid here about a week. Q.—Put a new rudder in? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That was part of your business? A.—Part, yes. Q. —Did you do anything else there; did you take any supplies? A.—None. Q.—And having done that you started on your northern trip? A.—We started on our coast trip. Q.—Up north? A.—T'p north. Q.—Followed up the coast and then went into Behring Sea? A.—We went into the west coast and got supplies for Behring Sea. Mr. Warren:—I want to know whether he got a new rudder or a new tiller He said it both ways. Witness:—New tiller. 30 40 Cmmissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, Between Great Britain and the United States of America Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 24, 1896. At 10.30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. Mr. Peters:—I understand that my learned friend on the other side has not yet completed his rebuttal evidence in the 5° "Carolena" case, and that he still reserves the right to call further evidence. Mr. Dickinson:—Not to exceed two witnesses, and they will be very brief. Mr. Peters:—Of course our rebuttal case in answer to that will have to be called. There is one witness, Mr. Spring, whom we desire to call to explain some entries referrd to by Mr. Laughlin McLean, these entries having been made in the 60 handwriting of Mr. Spring in a book produced by Mr. McLean; but we can do that later, and meanwhile that will not prevent us going on with the case of the "Thornton." Mr. Dickinson:—I dedre to call the Commissioners.' attention to the fact that when my learned friend speaks of the closing of the "Carolena" case, with the exception of the two brief witnesses to whom I have referred, we do not refer to anything but the "Carolena" proper. The testimony of a large number, of witnesses has been read into the "Carolena" 825 IO 20 40 So Go (Discussion.) case, for convenience, out of order, and as to those witnesses of course we have our reply. Mr. Peters:—That is thoroughly understood. Sir C. H. Tupper:—If the Commissioners please, I will, briefly open the case of the "Thornton." So far as the.issues go, there i's not much difference, if any,, between this case and the case that has been under the consideration of the Court. A great deal of the evidence taken in the case of the "Carolena" is applicable to the case of the "Thornton," and consequently it is not proposed, nor of course would it be right, to go over all that. Briefly, the case of the "Thornton" is one of seizure in the year 1886. Thie vessel was fitted out for a coast and Behring Sea voyage\ and, having completed the coast work, proceeded to Behring Sea in the month of July, and, after sealing in those waters, was seized on or about the 2nd day of August, and damages are claimed for the vessel, her loss of catch, seals taken, interest, and so on, as in the case of the "Carolena." There has been some difficulty, but I think we have almost surmounted it, in presenting the case, owing to the unfortunate death of most of those who composed the crew, including the captain; the difficulty of finding the mate, and the impossibility of ascertaining where the surviving members of the crew, or nearly all of them, happen to reside at the present moment; and I may take occadon here.to say to the Court that the evidence as to the value of the vessel, in view of the evidence already taken, cannot be very long. Yet there are one or two important witnesses, in addition to those we propose to call to-day, whose attendance we could have compelled and Avould have compelled here, but Ave took the liberty of feeling satisfied that our action would meet AA'ith the approval of the Commisdoners under the circumstances, in exceusing the attendance of one or two of them because of the special, important and urgent business upon Avhich they are engaged to-day and will be engaged to-morrow, notwithstanding it is Christmas Day, in getting a ship of some size off the slips in a shipyard. The proprietor of the shipyard waited upon us and explained the great loss thaf would be occadoned by the attendance of these men here to-day;- that he desired to keep them at work both today.and to-morrow, and that as soon as this ship was off they Avould be free. I do not know that it is necessary to point out anything more than the similar claims of the "Thornton" to those of the "Carolena." There is the usual claim for the imprisonment of the master and mate at Sitka, and the other claims are all similar in respect. The defence follows the same lines, and, among other things, after putting us to the proof of the main facts of the case, raises the question of ownership, and the reply of the British GoA'ernment is to the same effect as in the preceding case, so that the pleadings are practically the same. I do not know, having heard the other issues so fully read, that the Court will desire any further reference to those issues or to the pleadings in the case. I observe nothing special; in fact, it is almost a copy of the other pleadings. Before going on with the examination, I would like to state that we have formally asked our learned friends opposite to produce for inspection the inventory of the "Thornton," taken after seimre, and also a list, or inventory, of provisions transferred after the seizure of the "Thornton" to the steamer "St. Paul" or any other vessel. I would be obliged if my learned friend..would give,me his formal reply. 8z8 (Discussion.) Mr. Dickinson:—la formal reply, we furnished 3*ou some days since with a copy of the inventory taken by the officers of the revenue cutter. As to the inventory of goods removed to the "St. Paul," we never have had an inventory, and did not know of such removal of goods until we heard it in the "Carolena" case, if any goods were removed. Our position will be, as to that, that if any goods were removed to the "St. Paul," they had previously been inventoried. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I understand my learned friend says that he will produce it if it exists? Mr. Dickinson:—If there is an inventory, yes. We have already telegraphed on the subject. We have our telegrams, but I do not think you would like them. We, of course, do not admit that you have shown there is any so far. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I would like to ask the Commissioners, before proceeding with this evidence, in view of happened in the previous case, whether it not be wise to exhaust these witnesses as t& as to all the ships that are in issue; that say, for instance, instead of Mr. Cook's stepping down after he has spoken of the "Thornton," he te give his knowledge of the other ships, as to which he will be called, thus getting rid of all this class of testimemy. I do not think there is any object in having those witnesses appear and re-appear. Mr. Dickinson:—Not at all. All we would like is to get some intimation of such purpose, so we can prepare for cross- examination. Any plan adopted to save time will meet with our instant concurrence. Sir C. H. Tupper:—The only purpose of these witnesses as to value would be dmply to examine them—Mr, Cook, fe>r instance?—relative to the "Thornton/' the "Onward," the "Anna Beck': Mr. Dickinson:—We are not prepared to inquire as to the "Anna Beck" and those others. If it be announced, anel it meets with the approval of the Commissioners, we certainly do not object to taking out of its order the testimony of other Avitnesses here as to the value of all the ships in controversy. Then we will prepare accordingly and be ready at the next sitting as to all the ships, but we are not prepared to cross- examine any witnesses this morning as to anything except the "Thornton." However, I see no objection to putting it in and letting ivhn come back for cross-examination if we require him. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What right have we to assume that the counsel are at issue about the value of all these ships? Mr. Dickinson:—We are decidedly at issue, may it please your Honour. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— About the value of all of them? Mr. Dickinson.—Yes, your Honour, on this record the value of all of them, substantially and radically. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:-—1 think it would be more convenient for counsel to put in fird the papers of this vessel, so that we may see what she is before taking the evidence as to the value. Hubert John Cook was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—Were you examined in th ~o. Q-—You live on Catherine street, Victoria West, in the city of Victoria, Mr. Cook? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You have lived here for 34 years, I believe? A.—34 years. Q.—You are a ship carpenter? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And have been ever since you came into the country? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What shipyard? A.—I had the shipyard that Turpel has now for 16 years. Q.—I believe you built a pretty large ship there 3° Well, I built a steamboat there at one time. Q.—You built sloops as wc-il? A.—Yes, dr. Q.—Do you know the steam schooner "Thornton?" A.— Yes, sir. Q-—Did you know her, rather? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When did you first know the first I knew of her. I knew her before that. Q.—That was when she was a sloop? A.—That was when she was a sloop. Q.—Had you anything to do with the schooner in 1887? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What had you to do? A.—I rebuilt her. Q.—For whom? A.—Captain Warren. Q.—In your shipyard? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Tell the Commissioners, if you please, what work you did at that time, the character of the work, on this vessel Q.—In the first place, me and Captain Warren put a new deck and deck frame in, and then dripped off all the old plank and put a new frame between each of the frames that was in then, on account of their being too far apart. Q.—Taking out the old ones? A.—No, leadng the original frame; the original frame is a splendid frame; white oak; put in a new frame between each of them. Q.—What did you re-plank it with? A.—I hardly recollect whether it was two and a quarter or two and a half planking. q.—What kind of duff? A.—Douglas pine. q,—What else did you do? A.—Then she was re-planked, new covering boards, hatches, new bowsprits; well, every- 6o thing complete. q.—What did you do with the stern? A.—I raised the stern 16 inches. Q.—And completely fitted the ship up? A.—Yes. Q.—How long was die on the stocks for that work? A.— A little over eleA'en months. By the time I got through with her there was nothing of the original but the dem, dern- posts, keel, cdling and the original frame-work, left. Q.—She was practically a new ship? A,—Yes. 830 1 IO 20 40 So Go (H. J. Cook—Direct—Cross.) Q.—Was she covered at that time? A.—Yes, sir, copper fastened up to the water mark. Q.—How far did the re-planking go down? A.—Right from the keel to the gunwale. Q.—Did you leave any bad wood in her? A.—None whatever. -~|t^;| Q.—I suppose that was before she had the engine and boiler put in? A.—Yes. Q.—What did you condder her worth at that time? A.— There was onther alteration after that. Q.—What was the other alteration? A.—I took out the stern post and had to put in larger. Q.—Was that in 1881? A.—That would be in 1881. Had to put in larger stern-post of oak, new deadwood, new rudder and rudder posts. Q.—For what purpose? A.—And lengthened out the keel. Q.—For what purpose? A.—It was to take the shaft. Q.—Make a sleeve for the shaft? A.—To receive the sleeve. Q.—When they proposed to put steam into her? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Are you able to give the value without her steam equipment immediately before, let us put it in 1881? A.—1 am not going into the engine and boiler, the machinery part, only the woodwork. I valued her then at about $5,200. Q.—Without her steam? A.—That is before I made the other alteration. Q.—That was in 1SS1? A.—No, that was in 1877. Then she was worth about $5,200. Q.—What would atou say her value was as a ship when you undertook to prepare her for steam? A.—What her value would be? Mr. Lansing:—What year was that? Sir C. H. Tupper: That was in 1881. Q.—Was that vessel frequently on your slip? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did Captain Warren take good care of her? A.—He always took good care of his vessels. Q.—And did you see that vessel up to the year she was lost or seized, 18S6? A.—1 diel. Q.—And what was her' condition when you last saw her? A.—As good as ever. Q.—You have: a book showing when this vessel was on your slip? A.—I have. Q.—You know nothing of the value of her engine and boiler and that kind of work that was done on her? A.— No. Q.—That is the book is it that you hold in your hand? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And that book gives the dates when she was on your slip? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that, is in your own handwriting? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—By you at the time? A.—-At the very time. Q.—And it shows the day the vessel was on your slip, and the day she came off? A.—Yes. Q.—And the dates to which you have referred are in that book? A.—Yes, sir. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—Mr. Cook, you say vou practicallv re-built this boat in 1877? A.—Yes," sir Q.—In what condition was she when you first saw her? A.—Her frame w as in good condition, but the deck frame was gone. 831 (H. J. i '(ink—('ross.i Q.—Was her planking sound? A.—No, she had been ashore a great many times, and there was a great many short planks in her bottom. Q.—She was in bad shape in 1877 before you repaired her? A.—Well, not good. Q.—Was any of that bad condition due to old age? A.— •Well, a great deal of it was on account of her being ashore. io Q-—That does not exactly answer the question. I ask A*ou if a great deal of it was due to old age? A.—No, not a great deal of it. Q.—Was any of it? A.—A little around the top. Q,—That is the deck' A.—Yes, the deck. Q.—Had she rotted any? A —The beam ends were gone. Q.—She had been in scrimmages with the Indians, had she not, and had some holes in her? A.—There had been holes in her where she had got shorf length plank put in her bottom. 20 Q.—Did she have and holes in her made by guns? A.— No, not that I am aware of. Q.—Bullet holes? A.—No, I didn't notice any. Q.—In 1877, after you got through with her, she was practically a new boat, you think? A.—Yes, she was. Q.—And the new part you put in was worth very much more than the edd part? A.—She was worth more when I was done with her than she was when she was built first. Q.—Well then, your bill would represent the complete value , of the ship? \.—It would at that time. J q.—Was your bill $5000? A.—My bill at that time, what I put in to Captain Warren? Q.—Was your bill in 1877 $5000? A.—No, certainly not. Q.—You have jud stated that when you rebuilt her in 1877 she was worth more than when she was originally built in 1861,. and you have also valued her at $5,000, and you have also stated that your bill was not $5,000. Now, will you explain how she could be worth $5000 under those circum- stnces. A.—She was a better vessel because she had more 40 frames, she had two frames where she only had one before. Q.—You left all the old frames, and just put in the frames between? A.—Yes, all the old frames were in, they were white oak. Q.—What did you put in new frames for? A.—Because the others- were too far apart. Q.—Did you lengthen the "Thornton" any? A.—No, only bv the keel, when her propeller was put in, lengthened her keel. Q.—You never lengthened the ship proper? A.—No. 5° Q.—You merely lengthened the keel to take the propeller? . A.—Yes, to take the rudder post. Q.—What was your bill in 1877 for this one be>at? A.— My bill was, I think, $1240 and some odd dollars. That was my bill alone. Q.—And you are certain that that was for work on the "Thornton" only? A.—That was for labor. Q.—Your own labor? A.—Yes. Q.—Did that cover materials? A.—Oh, no. 60 Q.—Did you buy the material? A.—No. Q.—Who did? A.—Captain Warren. Q.—You do not know what he paid for them? A.—Well, no, not exact. Q.—How long were you busy on the boat? A.—A little over 11 months. Q.—And for your personal serA'i over $1,200? A.—Yes. you nad somerhmi Q-—Did yoxx have any one assisting you? A.—Yes. (H. J. Cook—Cross.) Q.—And were they paid by you or by Captain Warren? A.—There was a little contract I had on it. I paid my own men. q,—What sort of a contract did you have with Captain Warren, that you would re-build that boat if he would furnish the materials? A.—No. Q.—What was your contract? A.—I had a contract for a part of the work; that part I cannot think of; I have lost all records of it; and what part of that work it was I don't know. Q.—You have stated that you practically re-built the boat. Now, do you mean to say that you practically rebuilt the boat or you, with the work of other people practically rebuilt her? A.—I carried on the work. Q.—You did all all the work? A.—I did. Q.—When you say you had part of the contract, what do you mean? A.—I had a small contract of some kind; I don't know what it was to-day. That part I have forgotten. Q.—Well, Mr. Cook, your bill added to the cost of the materials that went into that boat would be the cost of re-building her, would it not? A.—My bill? Q.—Yes, 1,200 and odd dollars, added to whatever the materials cost Captain Warren, would be the total cost of rebuilding that boat in 1877? A.—No, that was only what I had from Captain Warren, my wages and the small contract. Then he paid outside parties. Q.—For doing what? A.—There was another man working on her besides that. Q.—I have asked you that once. A.—And Captain Warren was working on her himself. Q.—How long did Captain Warren work on her? A.—He helped put in her deck frame and deck. Q.—How long did that take? A.—And covering board. Oh, I am sure I don't know; I haven't got any records of it. Q.—He worked at the same time that these other things were done that you have been recollecting about, did he not? A.—He didn't; I don't think he was working at that time I 4 planked her; I think Captain Warren was aboard the "Beaver" at that time. Q.—During a part of those 11 months you speak of, Captain Warren was working on this boat, is that true? A.— Yes, a part of the time. Q.—What other man was working on her beside the one you hired, Captain Warren and yourself? ■ A.—A man by the name of Slater, I think. Q.—Is that the man you hired? A.—No, Captain Warren hired him. Q.—What did he do? A.—He helped to copper her. Q.—How long was he there during the 11 months? A.— That I can't tell yo.u. I have got no time book and nothing to show. Q.—He was there a very short time, was he not? A.—I don't know. Q.—It would not take long to cover that boat, would it? A,—I don't know how long it took. Q-—How much do you hink it would cost to copper the "Thornton"? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Does he know how much it cost, Mr. Warren? Mr. Warren:—I should think he ought to. (To witnes:) Q.—Do you know how much it would Cost to copper the "Thornton?" A.—The copper alone? Q.—Yes. A.—I think it cost about $800 at that time. 30 40 So Go Q.—How long was the per and coppering. Q.—How long was the "Thornton?" A.—51 feet. Q.—How deep was she below the water? A.—Six feet. Q,—Do you know how much copper it would take to copper the ''Thornton?" A.—As near as I can recollect it would take 450 sheets, between that and 500. Q.—Now will you name any other man that worked on the "Thornton" at that time? A.—No. Q.—In addition to the total cost of repairing that boat there, Mr. Cook, how much would you add to make up her total valuation? A.—I don't understand you, sir. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I confess I do not understand— Mr. Dickinson:—Let me explain that the witness has sworn to her valuation, sworn that he did this' work on her; now the question is, in addition to what he knows went into ht.r in the way of time and labor and material, how much does he add to make up this valuation that he gives? A.—I would add about $155 on to that besides what she cost. Q.—You mean beside what it cost to repair her? " A.— Yes. Q.—Did you make any entries of these items that you are testifying about, at that time? A.—I did at that time, but where it is now I don't know. Q.—You haven't them now? A.—No, I have got nothing of it now. Q.—And you have not refreshed your recollection recently from any memorandum of your own? A.—I got the recollection of having a memorandum of my own. Q.—I asked you if you have refreshed your recollection from these memoranda lately. A.—No. Q.—How long since you have seen them? A.—Not since I finished the "Thornton." Q.—That is 20 years ago? A.—That is 20 years ago. Q.—And you remember the amount of money that was paid you 20 years ago by Captain Warren? A.—I can; I have only one entry that I am aware of. Q.—And you can give me the details of the various things that you put into that ship? A.—I have one entry left of the "Thornton." Q.—Have you got that with you ? A.—No, I have not. Q.—What is that entry about? A.—That is money I received from Captain Warren. Q.—That is this price that you have given? A.—1,240 and some odd dollars, I don't know exactly. Q.—You have not any book giving the details of the planks you put in there and exactly what 3'ou did to the boat ? A.:— No, I haven't. Q.—Or how much the copper cost? A.—The price of copper about that time Q.—Wait a minute — The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—He has said distinctly twice that he has no memorandum book e^xcept this one to which he last refers. Q.—Now, Mr. Cook, the total cost of repairing this vessel in 1877 as estimated by you is $3,500, is it? A.—Yes. Q.—Where did you get those figures from? A.—I could figure it up to-day. Q.—Did you figure it up before you took the witness stand? A.—I looked it up last night. Q.—Looked it up Avhere? A,—To the best of my recollection. 53 834 I ,* iH. J. Cook—Cross.) Q.—Where did you look it up? A.—Because I knew the prices of things Q.—What do you mean by looking it up, that you thought about, or that you looked at something? A.—What she cod? Q.—What did you look at? A.—*I looked at nothing. Q.—Did you not look at an affidavit or a statement that io Captain Warren made once? A.—No, I had none. Q.—Did you ever see it? A.—No. Q.—You have talked with Captain Warren about this, have you not? A.—No. Q.—Is that so? A.—That is so. Q.—You have been in the court room every day since this session commenced? A.—I have. Q.—And Captain Warren has been here some part of the time? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you have seen him outside of the court room? A. 20 I spoke to him once about the spars, outside here, and that is the only thing I ever spoke to Captain Warren about; as for anything else, I know nothing. Q.—How much did the "Thornton" depreciate in value from 1877 to 1881? A.—Very little. q.—Would not depreciate at all, would she, Mr. Cook? A.—I wouldn't say there was $100 difference in her. She was a vessel well kept. Q.—You have lived in Victoria for a great many years? A.—Thirty or forty years. Q.—And Captain Warren has lived here for a great many years? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you have seen him often, I suppose, in recent vears? A.—I have not seen Captain Warren to have any conversation very much, not since the "Thornton" left here in 1886. Q.—Talked with him before 1886, did you, about it? A.— Oh, yes. Q.—Lots of times? A.—Yes. Q.—But since the year she was seized and this claim arose, you never talked with him? A.—1886, no. 1881, no. The time the "Annie Beck," I was on her. I don't know when that was; before 1886, anyway. (Refers to memoranda). Not since 1884. Q.—When you place this value on the cost of rebuilding the "Thornton" in 1877, I suppose you must place a value on the services that Captain Warren contributed, do you not? 30 40 5o 60 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Warren, I do not understand that he has placed a.value on the estimated cost of re-building the vessel in 1877. Mr. Warren:—He has estimated $3,500; he told me he added $1,500 to the cost of repairing to make a cost of $5,000. Mr. Dickinson:—-'May it please the court, we want to be extremely brief with this witness, but we have our own full knowledge of the case, and are pursuing the strict lines of cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I do not understand, nevertheless, that this witness says he has made an estimate of the cost of repairing that vessel in 1877. It is a matter of subtraction made by Mr. Warren in his own mind. Mr. Dickinson:—He has already so testified. We submit that we have the right to pursue the cross-examination Mr. Warren (to witness):—Q.—Mr. Cook, did you estimate the cost of repairing the "Thornton" in the year 1877 at $3,- 500? A.—Yes, sir. Q.^—Now, I will renew the question which I asked you before. In making the estimate of the cost of repairing the "Thornton" in 1877, you must have placed a valuation upon the services that Captain Warren contributed, is that so? A.—No, I did not. Q.—You did not include those services? A.—I did not put in his services at all. Q.—You put in the services of everyone else? A.—As making up the whole estimation? Q.—Yes. A.—Yes. Q.—You put in the services of every one in this $3,500 excepting those of Captain Warren? A.—I didn't put in Captain Warren's at all. Q.—How elid you know how much Captain Warren paid the other men? A.—I know by the rule of wages. Q.—Were you paid by the rule of wages? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How much were you paid a day? A.—$5. Q.—What is this little contract that you spoke of having? A.—Well, that I can't tell you. I have no record of it; 1 don't know what the contract was. Q.—Was it in writing? A.—I think not. Q.—You have not got it, if it was? A.—No, I don't think there was any writing about it; we wasn't so paricular about it in them days. Q.—You do not know what condition the "Thornton" was in in 1886 actually, do you, Mr. Cook, when she went into Behring Sea? A.—I don't think she was any worse; I was 4° aboard of her. Q.—Aboard of her where? A.—I boarded her along side of the wharf, and I hauled her out one time. Q.—What year were you aboard of her that you are speaking of? A.—I think it must have been in 1884. Q.—I a;a talking about the year 1886. A.—I don't think I was aboard of her. Q.—Were yon-aboard of her at all after 1884? A.—I don't think it. Q—When you place a valuation upon a boat, you are not talking about market value, are you, you are talking about the cost? A.—I am not tailing about the market v.'uc. Q-—You are talking a be. in the cost of building a new ship of her kind? A.—Yes. Q-—And did you mean to place her value in 1881 at $5000? A.—She would be worth $5,500 at that time. Q.—In 1881? A.—Yes. ' Q.—Where did she get that extra $500 from? A.—Put in stern-posts. Q-—That a\ as after you did the work in 1881 ? A.—Yes. Q.—You did $500 more work on her in 1881? A.—Yes. Q-—Do I understand that $5,500 added to whatever her material cost in 1881 is your idea of the value of the "Thornton? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That means it would take that much more money to build a new boat of her size? A.—To build a boat and fit her out as she was. 836 (H. J. Cook—Cross—Re-direct. Walter Walker—Direct.) Q.—And you are not placing a valuation upon the "Thornton" at all based upon what she would bring at a sale? A. —I am basing it at Avhat the "Thornton" cost. Q.—Were you paid for all your services that you ever performed for Captain Warren? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Does he owe you anything? A.—He does not. Q.—What are you doing now, Mr. Cook? A.—I work for Mr. Turpel sometimes. Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—You said you had attended this court? A.—Yes, sir. Q".—You attended under subpoena, did you not? A.—I did. Q.—With reference to this bill of $1,240 for labor, does that include your slip charges as well? A.—No, sir. Q.—The slip charges were in addition? A.—The slip charges were in addition. Q.—Then this book that you were asked about, containing the entry of the money paid to you on this account, is that the book that, you gave to Mr. Bodwell and myself? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And that we have? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You have no objection to that being produced? A.— Not at all, sir. Q.—Now, you were asked with reference to whether you had discussed tHis matter with Captain Warren. As a matter of fact you "have discussed it with Mr. Bodwell and my- 3° self, have you not? A.—That is all. Q.—On several occasions? A.—Mr. Bodwell, you anu Mr. Peters. Q.—And Captain Warren did not happen to be there? A. No, sir, I have never seen Captain Warren to speak to him at all. Walter Walker was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain. It was announced b3r the Commissioners that the oath administered to a witness covers his testimony with reference to any and all claims pending before the Commissioners. Sir C. H. Tupper:—We propose to transfer all the preliminary evidence of this witness in the "Carolena" case to this 50 case, as to ship's prices, and so on. Direct, examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—You knew this ship the "Thornton?" A.—Yes. Q.—You had to do with her in connection with some repairs, had you not? A.—No, I didn't. Q.—You remember where she was being overhauled? A. —Oh, yes. Q.—Was this ship yard where she was known as Turpel's ship yard? A.—It is now known as Turpel's. Q.—And how near was that to your own ship yard? A.— Oh, within, I suppose, about 300 yards. Q.—The yard opposite to yours? A.—It is farther down the bay. Q.—In the vicinity of yours? A.—Yes. Q.—Do 3'ou remember what was being done to the "Thornton?" A.—Yes, I was in there while Cook was doing those repairs, and he put in extra frames, took off all the planking. -Yes, it would be altogether necessary, what he said. Q.—What sort of a schooner was she when this work was done, was.she well built? A.—In 1881.? Q.—Yes. A.—Yes, she was in good order then. Q.—You saw her with the machinery in complete? A.— Yes. I have been aboard of her often; she carried one or two small loads of coal for me. Q—You kneAv her in 1886? A.—I knew her in 1886. Q.—What did she carry, what weight? A.—Wejl, I have had 50 tons on her? Q.—Long tons? A.—Long tons.. Q.—You have had that in her? A.—Yes. Q.—You knew her in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—Can you not put a value upon that vessel in 1886 as you knew her? A.—Well, I considered she was worth machinery and all about $6,000. Q.—You knew who built the machinery for her? A.— Yes, I knew the man. Thomas Gowen. Q.—I believe he is dead, is he not? A.—The last I heard 30 of him he was in Seattle. Q.— What condition was the "Thornton" in in 1886? A.— She was in good condition. Cross-examinati on Mr. Dickinson: Mr. Dickinson:—My learned friend, Sir Charles, navin£ transferred the direct-examination of this witness from the "Carolena" case to that of the "Thornton," so far as it is applicable, I now transfer the cross-examination of this witness in the "Carolena" case to that of the "Thornton," with the exception of that part of the cross-examination relative to the details of the "Carolena." Q.—What did you have to do with the "Thornton" yourself? A.—Nothing, except going aboard of her. Q.—What did 3'ou go aboard of her for? A.—Oh, I went aboard of every schooner in the harbor that was being repaired. Q.—What for? A.—To see what work was going on. Q.—Did you have any official duties? A.—Not then. Q.—How long is it since you haA'e had official duties to perform? A.—April, 1884. Q.—And did you go aboard the "Thornton" in pursuance of your official duties at that time? A.—No, sir. Q.—When you did go aboard you had nothing more than a casual unofficial interest in going aboard? A.—Well, from 1884 to 1886 I was supposed to see that schooners had their names written on the bow and stern, and the draught of water, and I always intended to look out for that. Q.—I understood you a moment ago to say that you did not go on the "Thornton" after 1884? A.—I iiave been aboard of her, but not officially. Q.—And you do not go aboard of her officially ever, did you then? A.—No, sir. Q-—Then, when you did go aboard of her, you went out of casual curiosity, did you not? A.—Well, yes. 838 (Walter Walker—Cross.) Q— Did you have any friends aboard of her? A.—Being acquainted with the business, I am always taking an interest. Q.—That is the shipbuilding business? A.—Yes. Q.—You took a casual interest as a shipbuilder in her? A. —Yes. Q.—Did you examine her? A.—Yes. IO q.—Did you go into her hold and look at her timbers, and examine her as you would on an official inspection? A.—No; I saw her on the ways when she was having that work done. Q.—Did you go into her hold? A.—I didn't go aboard of her in the hold in an official capacity. Q.—Did you examine her rigging? A.—No, sir. Q.—Any of her gear? A.—No, sir. Q.—Examine her hull? A.—Well, I looked it over, I didn't examine it. Q —For what purpose A.—As I had with any schooner 20 in the harbor. Q.—When was you last aboard of her? A.—Wdl, I couldn't say the exact date. Q.—Can you tell within ten years? A.—Oh, yes, I believe she had coal for me in 1884, and I believe I was aboard of her in 1886 when she went out—before she went out in 1886. Q.—You did not go up the shore in her, did you? A.—No, sir." Q.—What did you go aboard of her in 1886 for? A.—T am not positive. Q.—Did you go aboard of her in 1884? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Positive, are you? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—For what purpose? A.—I had coal in her, to the best of my knowledge. She carried coal for me in 1884. Q.—That is when you carried coal that you have spoken of ? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where were 3*ou carrying coal to? A.—From Nanaimo to Victoria. Q.—Was it your cargo? A.—My cargo. 40 Q.—Did you go down in her or go up in her? A.—-No, sir. Q.—And you went aboard to see about your coal? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—What was your business, then? A.—I was beginning to handle coal, and sometimes had work on the outside. Q.—You had a coal yard, did you? A.—Yes, I had a coal yard. Q.—And have had it how long? A.—Since 1883. Q.—So that your busfftess was principally dealing in coal then? A.—Partly. Q.—Was it principally? A.—In the summer time I went out and built some boats, and did other work. Q.—But your principal business was dealing in coal? A. —In 1885 it was. Q.—Did you charter the vessel for coal? A.—Yes, paid so much a ton freight. Q.—You made a contract for it? A.—Made a contract $1.25 a ton freight. Q.—You are surveyor in the port now, are you not? A.— 60 Ye»> sir- Q.—And you have been interested in shipbuilding? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Now, will you tell us some of the shipbuilders here from 1884 to 1886, when 3'ou were giving this matter attention? A.—There was one, Clark, that was here the other day. Q.—He is still A.—He is dill here. He was in the witness box. He built the "Rainbow." Q.—Never mind what he did. I am asking for the names. Now, tell me the name of any other shipbuilder that was here in those days. A.—Mr. Cook. Q.—This man that has been on the dand this morning? A.—Yes. Q.—Someone else? A.—Macaulay Smith. Q.—Where is be? A.—He is at the Marine Railway at Esquimalt at present. And Alexander Watson, senior, father of the one that was here. Q.—Where is Alexander Watson, senior? A.—He is in the city now. Q.—The next one? A.—Alexander Stacker, who built the "Sayward." He is dead now. Q.—He had a partner, did he not? A.—There was a partner. Q.—What was his name? A.—I don't recollect. Q.—Is he still here? A.—I don't recollect who was with 20 him. Q.—Do you know whether the man that was with him is here in Victoria? A.—I don't know. Q.—Give us the next one. A.—John Robinson. Q.—Still here? A.—Still here. Mr. Turpel, I think, had started then. Q.—Next? A.—Colwin, who had what they called the Clyde ship yard. He is not here now. Q.—Where is he? A.—He is in Scotland; in the Orkney Islands, I believe. His brother is here. Q.—Was his brother here in 1886? A.—He was; he worked in our yard. Q.—The next man ? A.—There was Alex Watson, jr., built some boats and had some contracts. Q.—Still here? A.—Still here. Q.—Next man? A-—Joseph Clark. Q.—Still here? A.—Yes, he is foreman for the C. P. N. Company. Q.—Next man? A.—I don't remember any more. Q.—Do you remember Harding, who was engaged in shipbuilding here from 1884 to 1886? A.—No. Q.—A man by the name of Richards? A.—I didn't know him. Q.—Do you think you have named all those within your memory now? A.—All those that built boats to the best of my recollection, that had any boats to build. I think, with a little time I can furnish you with a full list. Q.—You put your valuation upon what you know of the cost of vessels? A.—Well, not altogeher. I allow a cer- 50 tain amount for depreciation. Q.—But you estimate the cost, and then allow for depreciation; that is the way you arrive at the value? A.—That is the way I arrive at the value. Hubert J. Cook, recalled on the part of Great Britain. Dirert examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—Is this the book you referred to on your examination a little while ago, as to the entry B the amount charged Mr. Warren and received? A.—(Examining"book.) That is it, sir. Q.—How much is it, what do you find ? A.—$1,242, and then there is an entry here below of $48.75. 840 (H. J. Cook—Orlando Warner—Direct—Cross.) Entry in book is as follows: "1878, due to H. J. Cook,'J. D. Warren, to May 17, for work on "Thornton, total amount $1,242.40. Cash on account $860. Balance due $382.40. To June 27, 9 3-4ths days', $48.75." Witness says he does not know what the entry is for as to the 9 and 3-4ths -days. By Sir C. H. Tupper:—Q.—Do you know what sealing boats cost in 1886? A.—$6 per foot. Twenty-foot boat would be $120. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—It would cost less to buy sealing boats if you bought a number of them at the same time, would it? A.—No. Q.—It would not cost any less, no matter how many you built? A.—I have built them myself, and it never made any "difference. Q.—How old are you, Mr. Cook? A.—I am 60. Orlando Warner was re-called as a witness on the part of Great Britain. Sir C. H. Tupper:—With the Commissioner's permissiem, the same course will be taken in the case of Mr. Warner. He has been sworn and examined at some length as to his qualifications for giving opinions in regard to value, and I shall therefore do nothing more than to ask that the evidence taken in the "Carolena" case on that.point be transferred— the whole except that obviously irrelevant. Direct examination by Sir C. jper: Q.—You knew the ship "Thornton," Mr. Warner? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—What is your opinion of her value in 1886, what do you think she would fairly and honestly be worth at that time? A.—Well, I would consider the "Thornton" in 1886 to be a fair figure at anywhere from $5,000 to $6,000; I think she would be worth that as a steam schooner. Q.—Would you tell me what sealing boats were worth in 1886? A.—I always heard them quoted at $6 a foot, and the idea was that sealing boats were $100 and $120 apiece. I never dealt in them myself, but I have heard that remark at different times. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Mr. Warner, how do you reach the valuation of $5000 to $6,000 in your own mind? A.—From the fact that take the size of the schooner and the amount of repairs on her, I always considered her a seaworthy little veftel, and would be worth about that money. Q.—You mean then the cost of the repairs of the vessel, and what the vessel was worth before she was repaired? A. —I would consider that would make a representative amount. Mr. Dickinson:—Of course the same method is pursued with reference to this last witness, relative to the cross-examination, as before, namely, the transfer of the cross-ex- anrination from the "Carolena" to the "Thornton." The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I think it fair to assume that the cross-examination is put in the case* William Turpel was called as a witness on the part 'of Great Britain, but had previously been sworn. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I propose the same course with regard to this witness; that all evidence except such as is obviously inapplicable, be transferred to the case of the "Thornton." Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—I will ask you, Mr. Turpel, whether you knew the schooner "Thornton" in 1886? A.—No, I didn't know her. Q.—Did you know anything about sealing boats in 1886? A.—Yes, I had contracted for them, and I had contracted and built them. Q.—How much did they cost? A.—$120 apiece. Sir C. H. Tupper:—Then Mr. Turpel's evidence. in the "Thornton," so far as I am concerned, will consist of that transfer from the "Carolena" case, of general evidence, and the evidence he has given. Q.—In regard to sealing boats, is it necessary to repair them each season as they are brought in? A.—-Yes, as a general rule. Q.—They depreciate very rapidly in value, do they not? A.—Well, by spending a few dollars on them yearly they will hold on pretty well. Q.—What is the usual life of a sealing boat? A.—Five or six years, I suppose, I know some of them1 eight years old. Q.—Is not the usual life of a sealing boat much shorter? A.—If they are well taken care of they are good for five or six years. I lurve got them now for four years, and they are new seemingly as when I got them built. Q-—Do they not get heavier? A.—They get a little water logged. Q-—Do they not get double their weight in three years? A.—If they are kept well painted it does not matter so much. Q.—And weight has a great deal to do with the value of a sealing boat, hasn't it? A.—It has something, but I can't answer what it has to do exactly; from what.I know if they are kept well painted they do not get water-logged. Q.—You are the owner of the "Sadie Turpel" sealing schooner? A.—One of the owners. Q.—And she is fitted with boats? A.—Yes. The witness was not further examined. John Dallas was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and was duly sworn. Direct examination- by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—You were on the schooner "Thornton" as cook in 1886, were vou not? A.—Yes, sir. 842 (John Dallas-r-Direct.) Q.—That was during the coast trip? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And afterwards you were boat puller? A.—Yes, sir, on the Behring Sea trip. Q.—Who was your captain? A.—Captain Hans Christiansen. Q.—He is dead? A.—He died next trip. q.—Who was mate? A.—Wilson, otherwise called Harry- Norman. Q.—Do you know where he is? A.—No, sir. Q.—How many of a crew had the "Thornton"? A.—Fourteen all told. Q.—The captain is dead and you do not know where the mate is? A.—No, sir. Q.—Are any of the others about here? A.—No, sir. Q.—You are the only one? A.—The only one, sir. Q.—How many boats, had you? A.—Four, sir. Q.—Were they new boats or old? A.—New boats. Q.—You had no stern boat? A.—No, sir. Q.—Just four sealing boats? A.—Four sealing boats. Q.—About how long were they, do you remember? A.—I think 20 feet. Q.—What lay were you on? A.—Four bits a skin, sir. Q.—That is 50 cents? A.—Yes. Q.—What had the hunters for their lay? A.—$1.50 per skin. Q.—You hunted first on the coast in 1886 on the "Thornton"? A.—I was on the coast first. Q.—Then you put into Clayquot before you started direct for the Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You got your provisions for the Behring Sea voyage at Clayoquot from Captain Warren? A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Warren: Charles. -Do not lead this witness so much, Sir Sir C. H. Tupper:—If it is to be the understanding that there is to be no leading, then I shall be very glad for my part; it was allowed by both sides in order to save time. Mr. Dickinson:—My learned friend made merely a suggestion with regard to this particular witness. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I would prefer the rule to be enforced myself, that there should be no leading. Mr. Dickinson:—It is a mere suggestion from counsel. Examination by Sir C. H. Tupper continued. Q.—Out of what ship did Captain Warren give you the provisions? A.—The "Dolphin." Q.—Who was in command of the "Dolphin"? A.—Gap- tain Warren. Q.—What did you get out of the "Dolphin"? Do you remember what kind of provisions? A.—There were three or four barrels of beef, tea, coffee and flour. Q.—Biscuits? A.—We had biscuits on the schooner. Q.—What do you mean by biscuits, do you mean pilot bread? A.—Yes, pilot bread. Q.—Did you eat seal meat and fish? A.—Yes. Q.—On that trip? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And did the rest of the crew eat that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember when you were seized in the "Thornton"? A.—Yes. Q,—What happened to the provisions after that? A.—We were very short of provisions. Q.—What happened to those that you had? A.—They had flour, no sugar, tea, coffee, or anything. Q.—What ship did you go on from the "Thornton"? A.— On the steamer to San Francisco. Q.—What food had 3rou on the steamer? A.—The food they took off the schooner. Q.—Off what schooner? A.—The "Thornton." Q.—Was that the case with the other men, or how did they get their food on board the steamer? A.—Every man got his provisions off the schooner. Q.—What did the other men taken to San Francisco get their food on board the steamer? A.—From the steamer. Q.—You do not understand me. A.—Every man on that steamer went to San Francisco taking the provisions off his own schooner? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that was the case with the other men as well as the men from the "Thornton?" A.—Yes, sir, every man. Q.—Do vou remember the name of the steamer you went on? A.—The "St. Paul." Q.—And she took you to where? A.—San Francisco. Q.—-.What were you short of on the voyage? A.—I was short of butter, and sugar, and tea, and milk, and dried apples, and several things. Q.—Had you been out on any trips but this? A.—No, that was the first trip I went in the "Thornton." Q.—Was it usual to eat seal meat? A.—On the North Coast it was for grub, they were short of grub. Q.—But you had not been sealing in any other year but in .1886? A.—No, sir. Q.—And that was your fird year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you ever go afterwards? A.—No, sir. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—Did you help to take the provisions that went on board the "St. Paul" from off the "Thornton?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How did you take them to the "St. Paul?" A.—In boats. Q.—In whose boats? A.—In the "Thornton's" sealing 40 boats. Q.—Did any men go from her in the boat when the provisions went there except the men who went to row? A.— Five men in a boat the first trip. Q.—Any provisions in that boat? A.—Yes. Q.—Then you must have had but few provisions on her? A.—Very little provisions; only a few sacks of flour and beans, that's all. Q.—Do you mean that all the provisions that went off the "Thornton" were a few sacks of flour and some beans? A.— There might be four or five sacks of flour and a few sacks of beans, that's all. Q.—Anything else? A.—No, sir. Q.—That includes what you took and what all the others took? A.—Yes, sir; that is all. Q.—And the men who belonged to the "Thornton" took these things themselves? A.—Yes, he got orders to take them, take off the grub, and bring it on the steamer to feed them on the passage. Q.—Your captain told you that? A.—No, sir, the captain of the cutter said that. Q.—Did you hear the captain of the cutter give that order? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you say that you went into the harbour of Ounalaska? A.—No, Chucreal; it is near Ounalaska; it is just a little small place called Chucreal, there is a wharf there, it is near Ounalaska. 844 20 (John Dallas—Cross.) Q.—You said there were fourteen men on board the "Thornton," how man3j of these men were Indians? A.—Two Si- Avash, eleven white men and a Chinaman. Q.—The Chinaman was the cook? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were not cook on that trip? A.—No, sir, I was cook on the west coast. Q.—The Chinaman went np from Clayoquot with you? A.— io Yes, sir. Q.—Who was the hunter you pulled for? A.—I could not tell you his name. He belongs to St. John, N.B. Q.—Were the men provided with guns? A.—Yes, sir, I think the guns belonged to the schooner. Q.—What guns did they have. Shot guns or rifles? A.— A.—Shot guns and rifles. Q.—Did each hunter have a shot gun? A.—A shot gun and rifle, each one. Q.—Were there any extra shot guns? Avas an old one. but all the rest were new Q.—Do you know that they were all new them, I had them right in my hand. Q.—You do not know when they were bought? looked new. Q.—When was it that the "Thornton" carried mast head? A.—400 miles from Victoria. Q.—Off the west coast? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—She had carried away her masthead? A.—Yes, Q.—And her fore rigigng? A.—No. Q.—You did not have her rigging on when she entered Behring Sea? A.—No. *;Q.—She was in bad shape when she went into the Sea? A. 1 fixed her mast all right on the passage. Q.—What did you do to it? A.—I fixed it. Q.—Did the rigging come down? A.—Yes. Q.—How, the sail fell down, on the deck? A,—Yes. Q.—And that was 400 miles from Victoria? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you repair that? A.—Yes, my work was worth a 40 thousand dollars; I risked my life to go up on the schooner. Q.—Why was she towed into Behring Sea? A..—The steamer "Dolphin" was faster. Q.—And do you say that the schooner "Thornton" was in good order when she went into the Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Her canvas was not new, was it? A.—It was new. Q.—Did you have an extra suit of sails on board that was neAv? A.—No, sir. Q.—She just had one set of ||dls? A.—Yes, we carried bits of canvas to repair an^hing that was carried away.. 5° Q.—There was only one suit of canvas on board, but you carried little pieces to do any repairing that was necessary? A.—Yes, sir. 30 60 A.—Well, there A.—I saw A.—They away her sir. Q- hese pieces were new 1 A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you know if they were new, or looked new? A.— They looked new. Q.—Were they new that year? A.—No, I think they made a trip on the west coast before that. Q.—You were cook on that voyage before that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you see the sails before this trip? did not. Q.—You never did? A.—No, sir. Q.—Do you remember how long you were before you went down on the "St. Paul"? A. you, I never marked how long, I think it took come from Alaska, to San Francisco. Q.—Did you sta.A' on board your boats when you were at Ounalaska? A.—Yes, sir. A.—No, sir. I at Ounalaska —I cannot tell eleven davs to 845 (John Dallas—Cross.) would watch to go io Q.—You went ashore sometimes? A.—Yes, allow one watch to go ashore one day, and the the next day; they allowed the captain and the ashore every day. Q.—And the mate? A.—And the mate. Q.—They could do whatever they pleased? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—So that the mate and the master of the "Thornton" were not confined to their ship at Ounalaska? A.—No. Q.—You went down to San Francisco, so you do not know what happened at Sitka? A.—No. Q.—You were never at Sitka that year? A.—No. Q.—You were never at Sitka at A.—No. Q.—At Ounalaska did you see the men off the "Carolena" take some provisions on board the "St. Paul" ? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What did they use to remove the provisions? A.— They used one of the canoes; the "Carolena" had four canoes. r\ Tin. - x- ■> Q.—What boat did they use P.9 A—The sealing boat be- 20 longing to the schooner "Thornton." Q.—And they used one of these.canoes? A.—Yes. Q.—They used one of your boats? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And they just took provisions to the "St. Paul" once? A.—Yes. Q.—You saw them do that? A.—Yes. Q.—They had one of the "Thornton's" boats? A.—Yes. • Q.—Was there more than one man in the boat when they took the provisions from the "Carolena"? A.—There were two men. 30 Q-—Bid they take about the same quantity of provisions on to the "St.* Paul" that came off the "Thornton?" A.—I cannot tell you, because I never looked in the boat. Q.—You never looked to see what provisions thev took? A.—No. Q.—Were, the provisions that were taken off the "Carolena" and carried to the "St. Paul" in the same boat that the provisions were that were carried from the "Thornton" to the "St. Paul"? A.—Yes. Q.—And all this transfer was made in one trip? A.—Yes, 4° sir Q.—Were provisions taken off the "Onward" and put into that little boat? A.—No, sir. Q.—The provisions that were taken off the "Onward" were put into the "San Diego"? A.—There was the old "San Diego" there. Q.—You were not mistaken about that? You were sure that all the provisions that were taken off the "Carolena" and went on to the "St. Paul" were carried in the same boat in which thev carried the provisions from the "Thornton" to the 50 "St. Paul"? A.—Yes. Q.—And how many men off the "Carolena" were in that boat, did yon sha? A.—There were two men in the boat. Q.—How many men from the "Thornton" were in that boat? A.—Three. Q.—Then there were five in that altogether? A.—Yes. Q.—There were fhre men in that boat, and the provisions that came off the "Carolena," and the provisions that came off the "Thornton," arid that boat went over to the "St. Paul?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And there was just that one trip made when there were any proA'isions carried? A.—Yes, that's it. Q.—The other trips made might have taken men. but they did not take any provisions? A.—No, sir. Q.—Are you certain about that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember how many men there were on the "St. Paul" from the schooners? A.—No,' sir. but I know that Mr. Spring's schooner had Indians. Go 1 .. , \M\ io 20 40 So 60 846 (John Dallas—Cross.) Q.—I do not think they went down with you? A.—No, sir. Q.—They went on the "San Diego" to Sitka? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Whatever skins you took between Clayoquot Sound and Behring Sea you kept right on board the vessel? A.—There were five skins. Q.—You had only five? A.—Five from Clayoquot Sound to Behring Sea there were five, and the rest we got inside Behring Sea. Q.—I think you said two men in a boat went out hunting? A.—No, sir, three. Q.—How do you make that out? A.—Two white men and an Indian. Q.—So that there were twelve hunting altogether? A.— Yes. Q.—And you left the captain and the mate on board the boat? A.—No, the mate was hunting too. Q.—Well, you left the captain and the Chinaman on board the boat? A.—Yes. Q.—And when the boats went out hunting there would be the captain and the cook left on board? A.—Yes, that's all. Q.—Did you have many groceries or provisions left on board when you took the others from the "Dolphin"? A.— No, sir, there was not very much left; there was some flour and some biscuits. Q.—You remember that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—If you don't recollect it I don't want you to answer. Do you recollect just about how much there was here? A. —I could not tell you how much there was . Q.—But you could tell the articles that, were there? A.— There were 25 or 30 sacks of flour. Q.—And how much biscuit? A.—Ten or twelve sacks. Q.—And the "Thornton" had been trading with the Indians there from time to time? A.—No, sir. Q.—On the trip that you were cook on board had she been trading with the Indians? A.—Yes, sir, sometimes some Indians would come and buy some apples or something like that. Q.—And buy some pilot bread? A.—Yes. Q.—You used to sell the pilot bread on the west coast in these years? A.—Yes. Q.—And the "Thornton" had enough pilot bread on board m sell some. A.—Yes, they would carry about ten boxes unless they wanted to sell some to the Indians. Q.—And they would sell some to the Indians? A.—Oh, yes! On a long trip—four or five months—they would carry ten boxes of biscuit. Q.—Did they buy any skins from the Indians on the west coast? A.—No. sir. Q.—You took the provisions off the "Dolphin" at Clayoquot Sound? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you get all the provisions you took off the. "Dolphin?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember what you took off the "Dolphin?" A.—No, sir, I cannot remember. Q.—How did they carry the things from the "Dolphin" to the "Thornton?" A.—In boats. Q.—In your own boats? A.—Some carried in those boats, and some in another boat. Q.—Did you not get any flour or any pilot bread there? A. —No. q.—what did you get? A.—Some sugar, tea. coffee, dried apples, butter and three or four barrels of beef. Q.—What kind of beef? A.—Corned beef. Q.—Did you have any pork? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you get that off the Dolphin? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you get any bacon and ham? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you get that off the "Dolphin?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When you were taken up in Behring Sea you were pretty short of provisions? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—So that you did not get much off the "Dolphin?" A.- No, sir. Q.—Do you know anything as to the value of what you took from the "Dolphin?" A.—I cannot tell. Q-—Was the "Thornton" in such a condition when you entered the Sea that you could lower your boats and seal on every good day? A.-^Yes. dr. Q.—And she did that? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—Do you remember what time she went into the Sea? A.—No, sir, I cannot tell that. Q.—Which boat was picked first bv the carter—the "Thornton" or the "Carolena?" A.—The" "Thornton," I was the 20 first man picked up. Q.—Yon were out in your little boats? A —Yes, dr. Q.—But the "Thornton" was picked up before the "Carolena?" A.—Yes. Q-—And after the "Carolena" was taken in tow of the "Corwin" then the "Onward" was taken? A.—There was one- half an hour or two miles between them. Q.—Mr. Spring's schooner, vou mean the "Onward?" A.— Yes. Q.—You went to San Francisco in the "St. Paul." Now, in what boat did you come back from San Francisco? A.— In the steamer running from San Francisco to Victoria. Q.—How many men were you altogether when you came back on that steamer? A.—One man along with myself. Q.—Who was that man? A.—He was a hunter on the "Carolena." Q.—Was it John Cotsford? A.—Yes. Q.—And John paid your fare? A.—Yes. Q.—And he put up your watch to do that? A.—No, John j0 put up his watch and paid my passage. Q.—And you were the man that was cook on the "Thornton" whose fare Cotsford paid? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know anything about the quantity of ammunition that Avas on board the "Thornton" when she was seized? A.—I cannot fell. Q.—You are positive about there being no extra suit of sails on board her? A.—No, sir; all that was on her was canvas to fix sails with. Q.—Did you make a statement once that the "Carolena" was five or six miles from vou when she was seized? A.— No. Q.—Is that nearer right than what yon haA'e said just now? A.—No, sir, two or three miles off were the "Onward" and the "Carolena." Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—What provisions did you say were left on the "Thorn ton." Were flour and bread left ther Q.—Were any other provisions left on the "Thornton" when you went on the steamer? A.—There was not much left only flour and bread. Q.—Was there anrthing but flour and bread? A.—There might have been a few pounds of sugar or something like that. Q.—Nothing else? A.—Nothing else. Q.—You are certain of that? A.—Certain. Q.—Just as you Avere that there were no sail? on the "Thornton?" A,—Onlv canvas. IO 848 (John Dallas—Re-direct.) Q.—When you say that there was not an extra suit of sails on board do 3'ou mean that you did not see them? A.—I could see them myself, she was a small schooner. Q.—Did you know everything that was on board? A.— Yes, most everything. Q.—Can you tell me all that she had on board? A.—Yes, I could tell you. Q.—What did she have on board? A.—Four boats, in each boat two shot guns and a rifle, one suit of sails, several pieces of canvas, for repairing sails, bread biscuit, tea, and things like that—except tea and coffee we were very short of provision. Q.—Is that -ill you can mention as being on board the schooner? A.—Two anchors and chains. Q.—What more A.—I cannot sav about how much grub 20 30 40 .*P 60 there was on the schooner: I know there was some biscuit, bread, butter, tea, sugar, and things like that when we left Clayoquot; I think that's all. Q.—Was that all there was on the ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was there anything else? A.—No. Q.—You have told me all she had on board? A;—Yes, sir. Q.—Did't she have a few sacks of coal? A.—Yes. ' Q.—Have you told us everything? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Are you sure that was all on the trip? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that is all she had when she was' seized? A.— That is all. Q.—Anything more? A.—Nothing more. Mr. Dickinson:—Are you going to contradict your own witness? Sir C. H, Tupper:—We have records on both sides to show that he is making a mistake in this; I think he is honest enough about it, but I don't think he understands. (To the witness): Are you able to say, Mr. Dallas, whether any bread was sold on that trip? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you see any bread sold? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you see any bartered or exchanged for other things? A.—No, sir; on the northwest coast I saw them sell about one dollar's worth of dried apples and a few tins of yeast powder. Q.—Do you know how much pilot bread the vessel had? A.—I can't tell. Q.—You do not know? A.—No. Q.:—Now, Mr. Dallas, did you see all the trips that were made from' the "Carolena" to the "St. Paul"? A.—No-, sir. Q.—You could not tell us how many trips were made by boats from the "Carolena" to the "St. Paul?" You could not swear to that? A.—No, sir. Q.—You cannot say how many times the boats went from the "Carolena'' to the "St. Paul"? A.—No, sir, I could not. Q.—Where were you when they were bringing the provisions from the "Thornton" to the "St. Paul"? A.—I was on board the schooner "Thornton." Q.—Did you remain there until the goods went off the "Thornton"? A.—Yes, I took off a few sacks of flour and beans. Q.—Did you see any goods coming from the "Carolena" to the "St. Paul"? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you, A'ourself, see them? A.—YeS. Q.—How many trips? A.—One trip. Q.—That is all you saw? A.—Yes, ourselves made one trip and the "Carolena" made another trip taking provisions on board the steamer. Q.—That's all you saw? A.—That's all. Q—What day was that? A.—I can't say. Q.—What time in the day? A.—About ten in the morning. Q.—That was when they took the provisions from the "Thornton" to the "St. Paul"? A.—Yes. Q.—On what day did they take provisions from the "Carolena" to the "St. Paul"? A.—About the same .time. Q.—Did you pull in the boat? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you pull from the "Thornton" and pull from the "Carolena"? A.—Not the "Carolena," another boat went on board the "Carolena." and brought their own provisions on board the "St. Paul." Q.—You pulled the "Thornton's" stuff to the "St- Paul," and some other boat went to the "Carolena"? A.—Yes. Q.—Who pulled that? A.—Some men belonging to the • "Carolena." Q.—You did not know them? A.—No, sir. Q.—You did not examine the prOAdsions from the "Car- 20 olena"? A.—No. sir. Q.—It was not your business to do so? A.—No, sir. Q.—You were Yes, sir. Q.—Was there any arrangement by which the men from the "Thornton" were fed on the "Thornton" food, and the men from the other ships were fed on their own ship's food, when on board the "St. Paul"; are you able to tell hie that"? A.—After we came on the steamer our own cook gave them, and the cook of the steamer says: "You cook for your- 30 selves," and the grub from the "Carolena" was put altogether and given out. Q.—The food from the "Carolena" and the "Thornton" was mixed ? A.—Yes. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—What did you mean when you said you remembered that there were five in the boat? A.—That, was in the two boats. Q.—Then how many men came from the "Carolena?" —Two. Q.—Did the boats from the "Carolena" stop at the "Thornton ?" Did the boat that took the provisions from the "Carolena" to the "St. Paul" stop at the "Thornton?" A.—Yes. Q.—What did she stop there for? A.—Just yarning and talking. Q.—And how many men were in the boat that went from the "Carolena?" Were there tAVO or three? A.—There were 50 two men in the canoe. Q.—You do not understand. How many men were there in that boat that came from the "Carolena" to the "Thornton" that brought proA'isions? A.—Two or three; they did not bring them on board the "Thornton," they brought them on board the "St. Paul." . Q.—Did you see the boat that took the proA'isions from the "Carolena" to the "St. Paul?" A.—I saw them take provis-' ions on board a steamer, but I never looked inside. Q.—You only saw one boat take provisions from the "Carolena" to the "St. Paul?" A.—Yes. Q.—And one other boat took provisions from the "Thornton" to the "St. Paul?" A.—Yes. Q.—I suppose there was salt on board the "Thornton?" A. —There must have been some salt for the skins. Q.—Was there some lard left on board the "Thornton" when you left her? A.—I cannot tell you, sir, 54 85o (H. J. Cook—Direct.) Q.—Did you have some lard on the trip? A.—Yes, sir. The witness was not further examined. The Commissioners then rose at I p. m. io m 20 30 40 SO 60 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 26,1896 At 10:30 a. m., the Commissioners took their seats. Mr. Peters:—I propose now to proceed with the case of the "Onward," and wish to make a few remarks with reference to that case. I state that with regard to the outfit of the "Onward," she outfitted in the month of February, or March, with a very considerable amount of provisions; these provisions were not all intended for her sealing voyage, but a considerable portion was intended for trading purposes on the west coast of Vancouver Island, where Mr. Spring, the managing owner of the "Onward," was interested in three trading stations. I state that it is imposdble for me to separate the articles which were intended for such trading purposes from those Avhich were intended as part of the actual sealing outfit. Therefore, I will content myself, to a certain extent, with-, giving general evidence as to the quantity and quality of the provisions put on board the "Onward" during that voyage. Of course the vouchers are here for inspection, and may be of value with regard to the prices. As to the evidence, it is agreed that the "Onward" was a vessel of 35.20 tons register, 56 5-10 feet long, 20 feet wide and 475 feet deep; that she was built in California, "United States of America, in 1871; that she was registered as a British ship in the port of Victoria, 22nd September, 1878. Hubert John Cook was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Peters:, Q.—State generally how long you have been in the ship building business? A.—Forty-six years. Q.—How long were you actually the owner of ways on which vessels were hauled up for repairs and alterations? A.—I had ways in Nanaimo in 1866 and 1867. Q.—In the city of Victoria have you had them since 1873? A.—Yes, sir, I have had them for the past sixteen years. Q.—And during that time had you experience in the repairing of very many schooners? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You also, I believe, built some schooners? A.—I have built no schooners; I have built steam boats and small craft, but I never built sealing schooners. Mr. Peters:—I wish the evidence given by this witness, and taken in the "Thornton" case, with the exception of such parts as are obviously inapplicable to this case, to be trans- erred. Direct examination continued by Mr. Peters; q.—I want you to come down to the schooner "Onward." Did you work on the schooner? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you work on her in the year 1878? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you a book there with reference to that? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—According to that book did you work on her in September, 1878? A.—Yes. that was when she was brought to the io country first. q.—i want you to tell me if, at that time, she was a centreboard? A.—Yes, she had a centre-board on one side of the keel, ii did not go through on the main keel. Q.—Did they alter that? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you do the work? A.—-Yes, sir. Q.—What did you do? A.—I took out the centre-board, and blocked flue hole up that goes underneath, and put in a false keel and main keel,' and fastened her right down through. 20 Q.—Yon altered her from the centre board to a keel vessel, putting on a false keel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You worked on her in 1881 again according to your book from the 30th September to the 11 th October. That's in your book; is that correct? A.—That is correct, what is in that book. Q.—Was she on your slip again in 1886? A.—Yes, she was there. Q.—In January, 1886, to February. 1886?A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And then she went out to sea, and was not heard of any more? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you tell me what sort of a vessel she was,, and what she was built of? A.—She was built of Oregon pine. Q.—Was she copper fastened, or galvanised? A.—She was galvanised. Q.—Do you know anything about her sailing qualities? A. —She was a very good sailer. Q.—How do you know that? A.—From what I heard from Captain McKay. 4° Q.—What did he say? A.—He said she sailed good. Q.—Could you, from your knowledge of the "Onward," say what she was worth in 1886? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—We had better avoid confusion in that, I got confused the other day because of a question like that that was put to a ship carpenter—perhaps Mr. Cook, himself—and it turned out that he answered what he thought she cost, as she dood. Mr. Peters:—I will ask him what she cod to build. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It does not matter how you put it so long as it is made clear. Mr. Peters:—Certainly (To witness): Q.—From your knowledge of ships, and from your knowledge of ship building, what would the "Onward" cod to build in 1886? A.—That is here in Victoria? Q.—Yes. A.—She would cost $105 a foot, builder's oo measurement, that is for hull and spars. Q.—Can yon give it to me by the ton, instead of by the foot? A.—It was "ton" I meant. Mr. Dickinson:—This evidence is only competent, of course, in the absence of evidence as to market value. The Commisdoner on the part of the United States:- is covered by the objection taken in the "Carolena" case, 852 (H. J. Cook—Direct—Cross.) Direct examination by Mr. Peters continued: Q.—You mean builder's measurement by "ton?" A.—Yes. Q.—Do you know the difference between builder's measurement and registered measurement? A.—It all depends on the shape of the vessel which has got to be figured out. Q.—Do 3'ou know Avhat the tonnage of this vessel would be —builder's measurement? A.—I have no recollection. Q.—Can 3'ou tell me near it? A.—She would be 43 or 44 tons. Q.—That is builder's measurement? A.—Yes. Q.—When you say "hull and spars," do you mean it would not include the sails and rigging? A.—No, sir, I include in that hull and spars, and nothing more. Q.—You knew about the age of the "Onward," did you? A.—Yes. she was built in 1871. Q.—Do you know anything about the sale of vessels at that time? The price that vessels were selling at at that time? A.—Of course I could give a rough statement of the price of vessels at that time. Q.—Having regard to the age of the "Onward." what would you think she was worth at that time? Taking the difference between her and a new vessel, was she in good Order, or what sort of order was she in, in 1886? A.—In splendid order, I would claim that she was a vessel that was well kept. Q.—She would not be as good as a new vessel, I presume? A.—No. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—When you gave your testimony in the case of the "Thornton" you stated that she was repaired in 1877, and that in the year 1886 she was as good as new, practically, or that there was about $100 difference? A.—That is all. Q.—Why do you say that the "Onward" was not anywhere as good as new although you stated that she had been well rept? A.—I said she had been Avell kept. Q.—You also stated that she was not worth as much as she -I neA'er saw through the "Onward" as I did the "Thornton," I ne_\7er went through the frame of the "On- AA'ard." Q.—You never inspected the "Onward?" A.—Never a thorough inspection. Q.—You do not know whether the frames were sound or not? A —I think I bored through the bottom, and it was all right. Q.—I thought you said that you never inspected her? A. —I did not see her any more than the borings. Q.—You bored in through her? A.—Yes, I bored through ler, and fastened her keel. That was in 1878. Q —You do not know anything about her timbers after 1878, as to their remaining sound or not? A.—I never seen ler timbers. Q.—After that? A.—She was well kept, she was fastened in her centre board, and there was not leakage there. Q.—You talked about what it would cost to build the "Onward" in 1886: What vessels of the character of the "Onward" did you build in 1886? A.—I do not know. q,—TMfl y0U build any? A.—No. q.—Did you build any in the year 1885? A.—I did not build any sealing schooners. Q._What steam boats did you build in 1886? A.—The "Royal City." Q.—In the year 1886? A.—It was long before, that. >. q.—When was it? A.—It was in .lime, 1874, or 1875. Q.—Were von working on any boats in the year 1886, except in the matter A'essels. Q-—Were you constructing any new vessels, or were youas' sisting in the construction of any new vessels? A.—No, I don't think it. y.—How do you know how much it would cost to build a vessel in 1886 ? A.—I could tell you Avhat they were worth, 1 have, figured them up, 1 could make specmcations and 1 could run through the specification, and ten you exactly wnat tne vessel is going to cost me. Q.—And 3'ou could now, I suppose? A.—I could then, y.—How do you knoAV what it would cost in 1886? A.— Because I kneAv what the prices were. Q.—ifou do not know anything about the market value of boats in 1886? A.—So far as that goes there Avas no real market value. Q.—But boats Avere transferred from one person to another at mat time? A.— les, Ave used to bu3' some vesseis from San Francisco, and some came out from the East. Q.—Were there any that came out from the East in 1886? A.—Yes, the "Pathfinder" was the first to come out, and 1 think she came out in 1886. Q.—She was the only one in 1886? A.—She Avas the first one that came here. Q.—What is your estimate of the cost of the "Onward'' in 1880 ? A.—1 consider between f 4,000 and $4,500, or something like that. y.—You got that figure on a basis of $105 per builder's ton? A.—She would run over that. Q.—Tasked you what the "Onward" Avould cost in 1886, and and y'ou said "between |4,000 and $4,500? A.—I told you $ 105 per ton. - Q.—Did not you answer me just now that the cost would be betwetm f 4,000 anel $4,500? A.—I say_ that the vessel was honestly worth between $4,000 and $4,500. ii.—Was that your idea of what she would cost in 1886? A.—She would cost more than that. Q.—How much would she cost in 1886? A.—That vessel should run up over $5,000. Q.—On what basis did you arrive at that? You have stated that she would cost $105 per builder's ton? A.—Yes, she would go a long way over that. Q.—Over what? A.—Over $5,000. Q.—How much would she go over? A.—I have not any figures here. Q.—Bow much do you say she would cost in 1886 to build her? A.—In 1886 you might take a little off that. Q.—Take a little off what? A.—Off the $105 a ton. Q.—Do you say that she would cost $105 a ton to build in 1886? A.--No. Q.—You do not say that? A.—I do pot say that in 1886. Q.—Didn't you tell Mr .Peters that? A.—Not in 1886, I think I put it at that at the time I repaired her. Q.—What in 1877 or 1878, is that what you mean ? A.—In 1878 I would say that. Q-—Then you did not intend to testify that she would cost $105 per builder's ton to build in Victoria in 1886? A.—You have got me a kind of muddled up there. Q.—Did you say that she would cost that in 1886? A. I think she would have; in 1886 you would have to pay almost double for the material than you would now. Q—I want to understand whether you say that the cost of building a boat like the ""Onward" in 1886 was $105 §fe= IO 20 30 854 (H. J. Cook—Cross—Re-direct.) builder's ton? A.—Yes, it would be when you came to reckon what the material was worth then. Q.—Just answer my question. In 1877 your idea is that she would cost $105 per builder's ton? A.—Yes, sir. q.—was it just the same in 1886 as it was in 1877? A.— There was very little difference. y _Do I understand that to build the "Onward" in 1886 it would cost $100 per builder's ton? A.—Yes. Q.—What is your idea of the total cost of the "Onward" in 1886, or of a boat like the "Onward"? A.—The total' cost as she stood then I would put in at about $4,500; she was well fitted out in rigging and sails, and everything about her was good; I could not go into the inside where I could see her. Q.—I am not asking you about that. You say that the total cost of the "Onward" ready to go to sea in 1886 would be $4,500. Is that what you mean? A.—She was worth that. Q.—Ready to go to sea? A.—No, sir. Q.—Ready to take her sealing outfit—that is leaving provisions out, we are not talking about provisions at all. Is it not your idea that the "Onward," reckoning on a basis of $105 per builder's ton, would cost $4,500? A.—Yes, she would cost over that. Q.—How many builder's tons are there in a registered ton? A.—A builder's ton is 95 feet, a registered ton is 100 feet. Q.—And that is your idea of the difference between a builder's ton and a registered ton, is it, Mr. Ce>ok? A.—Yes, that is my way of measuring a vessel. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—You were asked whether you had examined the frames of the vessel; as a matter of "faict could you examine' the frames without taking out the ceilings? A.—No, certainly not. Q.—You did not take the ceilings out? A.—I did not take the ceilings out. Q.—So you did not examine the frame of the vessel? A.— I could not see anything of the frame. Q.—But you could see in putting in the keel, you bored through her keel? A.—I bored through her timber and through her outside keel. Q.—Everything there was solid? A.—Everything was sound. Q.—You were asked by Mr. Warren as to whether, making up your measurement, you were speaking of 1886 or 1877 when you put down the $105 per ton. As a matter of fact were wages and material different in 1886 from what they were in 1877—were they higher or lower? A.—There was 50 very little difference, the wages were the same and the material was nearty the same thing, there was very little difference in it. Q.—Yon talked about builder's measurement and you gave one difference between that and the registered measure. As a matter of fact, in using your builder's measure, what measurement do you take? A.—I take from the perpendiculars. Q.—Where? A.—From the stem and stern post. Q.—And what with? A.—Her full breadth of beam. Q.—And so to speak you make that into a box shape? A. —Into a square box shape. Q.—That is what you call builder's measurement? A.— Yes. Q.—That is far larger than registered tonnage? A.—Yes. Q-—That is the "rough way yem get at it? A.—Yes. Q-—You could not tell from the builder's measurement what the vessel is going to register at? A.—No, sir. 40 60 Cook—R Q.—Does not that depend entirely upon the shape? A.— That depends upon the shape of the vessel. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Warren: was worth more Q.—Is it your idea that the "Onward': than the "Thornton" in 1886? A.—No. Q.—About how much less was the "Onward" worth than the "Thornton" in 1886? How much is your idea of what the "Thornton" was worth? A.—$5,500. Q.—Ready for machinery? A.—Ready for sea without machinery ready to receive her machinery. Q-—Do you base your valuation of the "Thornton" on what she would cost to build in 1886? A.—No. 20 40 Orlando Warner, a witness on the part of Great Britain, was recalled. Mr. Peters:—I wish the evidence of this witness as taken in the "Carolena" and "Thornton" cases to be transferred to the "Onward" case—except where it is obviously inapplicable; that applies to the cross-examination and re-examination. 3° Direct, examination by Mr. Peters : Q.—You kneAV the schooner "Onward," I believe? A.— Yes. Q.—Have you ever worked on her? A.—I never worked on her. Q.—Have you seen her frequently ok not? A.—I was in the habit of seeing her. Q.—Was that Avhen she came into harbor? A.—Yes, every year. Q.—About what would such a vessel be worth about the year 1886? You knew her age did you not? A.—No, I did not know her age. Q.—Was she kept in good order? A.—She always looked to me to be a well taken care of little vessel. Q.—Can you give me your idea of her value? A.—Well, such a vessel as that would be worth anywhere in the neighborhood of $4,000 to $5,000 ready for an ordinary trip. Q.—Outside of a sealing trip altogether? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You never worked on her? A.—No, sir, I never worked on her. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Were you ever on her? A.—I have no recollection of ever having any business in her. Q.—You do not remember ever having been on her at all? A.—I do not remember of ever being on board her. Q.—Did you see her on the stays? A.—Yes, sir, I saw her 60 on the ways. Q.—When? A.—I do not recollect the year, I have seen her out, I have seen her at a distance. Q.—You have seen her at the shipyard? A.—Yes, on what we call the ways. Q.—What were you doing at the ship yard at that time? A.—I do not recollect that T was even at the yard, but I have seen her, I never went to examine her at all. SO 856 (S. Sea—Direct—Cross.) Samuel Sea Avas called as a witness on the part of Great Britain, and was duty sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Where do you live, Mr. Sea? A.—In Victoria. Q.—And you are about, how old now? A.—59. y.—What is your occupation? A.—Ship builder, ship- 10 wright. Q-—How long have you been employed in that work? A. —Ever since I was a boy 14 3'ears old. Q.—What kind of work have you been employed at? A.— Building vessels of various kinds. Q.—Have you built any schooners? A.—Yes. Q.—Such as are used for sealing? A.—Yes. Q.—You actually built them? A.—Yes. Q.—You contracted for them? A.—No, to own them. 20 Q-—Have you built many? A.—I have built two. Q.—Two for sealing? A.—Yes. Q.—In Avhat years? A.—In the sixties. Q.—Where? A.—1 built one in Victoria and one in Alberni. Q.—When? A.—One in 1863 and one in 1868. Q.—You have a knowledge of what it Avould cost to build that kind of vessel? A.—Yes, pretty welU Q.—And up to the present time? A.—No, sir, I have not built any within the past ten years. 3° Q.—Up to ten years ago had you a knowledge of what it would cost to build that sort of a vessel? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—Did you know the schooner "Onward?" A.—Yes. y.—Had you seen her frequently or otherwise? A.—1 had seen her and I had worked on her. Q.—When did you work on her, Mr. Sea? A.—I worked on her several times, I think, when she first came to Victoria, I did not keep any dates because I was not boss of the job. y.—who was boss? A.—Mr. Cook. y.—Did you work on her when she was changed from a centre board to a keel? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you any knowledge of what it would cost to build this class of a vessel here, and from your knowledge of the "Onward," can you tell us about what that vessel was worth in 1886? A.—That is for her hull and spars. Q.—Her hull and spars, and stern post, everything ready for going to sea, with the exception of her sealing outfit? A. —I should think that a vessel of her kind, as she was then, Avould be worth $4,500. 50 q.—is thai including her sealing outfit? A.—No, only her hull and spars and sails. Q.—And the stern boat, and, of course, the anchors, and everrthing of that kind? A.—Yes. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—What was the last sealing ship you built? A.—In 1872. Q.—What was it? A.—A schooner. 60 Q.—Name? A.—•'•'Cambria." Q.—Tonnage? A,—I think she was 52 tons, or something like that, but I cannot swear now. Q.—Where is she? A.—She is on the New Zealand coast. Q.—Were you the boss? A.—I was. Q.—And the contractor? A.—Yes. Q.—In 1872? A.—Yes. Q.—That is the last one you built? A.—Yes. y.—And the other one you built in 1860? A.—In 1863 or 1864. Q.—There is no doubt about these years when you built; in 1863 or 1864, and the other in 1872? A.—Yes. Q.—What did the "Cambria" cost? A.—The whole outfit? Q.—You were the contractor, can you remember what she IO cost? I asked you what she cost you for your contract? A.—I believe she cost in the neighborhood of $3,000. Q.—Did you build in 1863 or 1864 for yourself? A.—With two partners. Q.—What ship? A.—The "Goldstream." . Q.—How much tonnage? A.—52 tons. Q-—The same as the "Cambria?" A.—Something about the same. Q.—Did you build her for a sealing trip? A.—There was no sealing in existence. 20 Q.—In your direct examination you said you built sealing ships? A.—They were the same class.of vessel. Q.—You do not mean you ever built a sealing ship? A.— Not direct, but the same thing. Q.—What did your first ship in 1863 cost? A.—In the neighborhood of. $6,000. Q.—Was she built in Victoria? A.—She was built in Alberni. Q.—Did you ever work on the "Onward" except at the time that Mr. Cook was boss? A.—Yes. •* Q.—What other times? A.—I worked for Mr. Spring. Q.—On the "Onward?" A.—On the "Onward." Q.—In what shipyard? A.—She was afloat. Q.—What were you doing on her afloat? A.—I was caulking the deck. Q.—Anything else? A.—Generally patching up. Q.—Did you ever work on her hull? A.-^—We did for Mr. Spring. Q.—When was that? A.—In 1880, or somewhere along 40 there. Q.—When did you work on her under Mr. Cook? A.—I think it was in 1878 or 1879. Q.—And 3'ou have not been working on any other ship since? A.—Yes, lots of them. Q.—Of the same class as the "Onward? A.—Pretty much the same class. Q.—How many do you think you have worked on since 187S? A-.—I suppose 20, it might be more or less. Q.—Have you seen the "Onward" since you Avorked on her? 5° A.—Yes, I have seen her when she used to come into harbour. Q.—Have you been upon her? A.—Yes. Q.—Have you seen her since 1886? A.—I cannot say I have seen her since 1886, I might. Q.—Are you positive you saw her between 1880 and 1886? A.—I think I have. Q.—Well, are you positive? A.—I cannot exactly swear, but I am almost sure. Q.—Are vou about as sure that von saw her since 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—What are you doing now? A.—I am working at my trade sometimes. Q.—What is that? A.—Ship building. Q.—What else are you eloing? A.—I am working on the farm. Q.—Where do you farm? A.—It is out on the Burnside road. Q.—Do you devote your attention entirelv to vour farm? A.—No. 858 (S. Sea—Cross—Re-direct. A. Watson—Direct.) Q.—Do you devote your attention entirely to ship building? A.—No. Q.—To what do you devote your attention principally? A. —When I feel like ship building I do it. Q.—What else do you do? A.—Walk around. Q.—You are retired? A.—I am not exactly retired, if any one wants me to work for them I do. Q.—Are you living in the district? A.—I am living on the Burnside road. Q.—Do you stay here at nights in Victoria? A.—Sometimes. Q.—What do you do about town? A.—What do I do? Q.—Yes. A.—Walk around and see the sights. Q.—Every day? A.—Not every day. Q.—And when you work in the ship yard you work as a journeyman? Do you work for daily wages? A.—Yes, for daily wages. Q.—When you put a price upon the "Onward," were you thinking of her because of your knowledge of ship building? A.—Yes. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—When you spoke of building two vessels, one in 1863 and th eother in 1872, you stated that they were about 52 tons each, if you remembered correctly? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When you speak of tonnage in that way, are you giv- 30 ing builder's measurement or registered tonnage? A.— Registered tonnage. Alexander Watson, Jr., was recalled as a witness on the part of Great Britain. Mr. Peters:—With regard to this witness I desire that his evidence given in the case of the "Carolena," except where obAdously inapplicable, should be transferred, and also his evidence given in the "Thornton" case, that applies to the cross-examination and also to the re-cross-examination. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Will you be kind enough to tell me whether you know the "Onward"? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you ever work on her? A.—Not that I remember. Q.—Have you had several opportunities of examining and seeing the "Onward"? A.—I have been on board several times, and around her very often. Q.—Did 3'ou see her when she was on the slip at any time? A.—Not that 1 remember. Q.—You have seen her in the harbour on several, occasions? A.—Yes. Q.—She was seized in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—Have you ever seen her before 1886 or in the year 1886? A.—I do not say positively as to 1886, but 1885 I seen her. Q.—Now then, from your knowledge of shipbuilding— which we have already got—and from your knowledge of the "Onward," did you Icoow her age about? A.—No, I did not Know exactly what her age was, but I should think she could not be a very old vessel. Q.—From "your knowledge of the "Onward," can you say what she was worth?. A.—From $4,325 to $5,000. IO 859 (A. Watson—Direct—Cross. W. Walker—Direct—Cross.) Q.—On what do you base your valuation? A.—On what vessels cost. Q.—You were speaking of the vessel ready for sea with her sealing outfit or without ft?A.—Without it. Q.—Ready for sea as an ordinary schooner? A.—Yes. Q.—With anchors and chains, and sails and stern boat? A.—Yes. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—How do you reach that valuation of $4,325? A.—On the basis of $125 a ton. Q.—$125 registered tonnage? A.—Yes. Q.—Is that the cost of building? A.—That is the cost, yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you mean that $125 a ton is a fair valuation for a new vessel 20 of that class? The Witness:—Yes, sir. I cannot be positive -to a dollar, but that is nearly it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Registered tonnage? The Witness:—Yes, sir. 3o 40 SO 60 Walter Walker was recalled as a witness on the part of Great Britain. Mr. Peters:—I desire the evidence of this witness taken in the "Carolena" and "Thornton" cases to be transferred to this case, except where it is obviously inapplicable, also the cross- examination and re-examination. Direct examination hy Mr. Peters: Q.—Were you acquainted with the schooner "Onward?" A.—I knew her when she came here from San Francisco. Q.—Can you tell irie about what her age was? A.—She came here about 1877 or 1878 probably. I heard that she was probably seven years old when she came. Q.—Did 3'ou see the vessel after she had been here? A.— Yes, sir, several times. Q,—Do you remember when it was you last saw her? A. —I saw her the last time—she never came back—but I forget the year. Q,—From your knowledge of ships and shipping iu Victoria, will you kindly give your opinion as to the value of the "Onward" in 1886, or about that time? A.—About the time she went away and never came back? I should judge about $4,000. Q.—You give that as her value, considering age and everything else? A.—Yes. I may say that when she first came here she was a centre board, and, of course, not so valuable, but they changed her, and put in a good keel in her, and that made her more valuable. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Did you ever go on the ship in an official capacity? A.—Not in an official capacity. Q.—Did you ever examine the "Onward?" A.—Not in an official capacity. 86o iW. Walker—Cross.) romg on io 20 40 SO A.—Except A.—That I can- A.—Pro- Q.—Did you ever examine her? board I did not work on her. Q.—When were you on board of her last? not say. Q.—How many times were you on board her? bably half a dozen times. Q.—Were you on board her half a dozen times? A.—I have been on board of her half a dozen times, probably; I would not say. Q.—Did you go on all the ships in this harbour half a dozen times before you were appointed surveyor? A.—I have the impression that I might have done some work on board her. Q.—You have done a good deal of work on vessels? A.— I have until 1834. Q.—And having done work on a great many vessels you have some difficulty in remembering what vessels you have been on? A.—Yes, it is hard for me to remember. Q.—You are positive that you have been on her? A.— Yes, but not positive that I was on her to do work. Q.—What would you do on the "Onward" if you ever were on the "Onward?" A.—I would likely look around her and see what kind of a vessel she was; at the time there were not very many vessels in the port, and the merits of every vessel. were discussed as she came. in. Q.—You do not remember whether it was in 1878, 1880, or 30 1884 or 1885 you were on the "Onward?" A.—No, I cannot say exactly, but I know the vessel was in good hands and well kept. Q.—Your testimony was somewhat based upon the fact that she was in good hands? A.—Yes, they did not own any other vessel to undertake any other business, I believe. Q.—When did you last see Mr. Cook, Mr. Sea, and Mr. Warner and Mr. Turpel together outside of this court room? A.—I have not seen Mr. Sea probably for a month or two until this morning. Q —Did you ever see them together? A.—No. Q.—Meet them together? A.—No. Q.—You never had a meeting with them? A.—I have not been to see Mr. Cook. Q.—Have you been to see Mr. Warner, Mr. Turpel and Mr. Watson? A.—I met Mr. Turpel, and Mr. Warner, they came in when I was there. y.—Where? A.—I met them at Mr. Bodwell's. y.—Anywhere else besides that? A.—I meet Mr. Turpel every day. Q.—-You do not fix your valuation upon anything else besides your'personal observation of the ship? A.—No. Q.—From your observation of her at some time prior to 1886 and whether it was in '78, '79 or ?80, or up to '85, you cannot say? A.—I knew her later than that because Captain McKay was a personal friend of mine. Q.—Later than what? A.—Later than 1883. Q.—In fixing your value did you have in your mind the cost of building such a ship? A.—Not altogether; I presume that 60 I had in my mind the changes that were made iBJjjher. Q.—And the cost of those changes? A.—The cost of some of those changes, of course, I also kept in mind that the vessel was kept in very good repair, the sails and rigging were in first-class condition because Captain McKay would not have anything else on board her. Q.—Did you examine her sails and rigging, or do you state that from your belief that Captain.McKay would not have anything else on board his boat? A.—I have seen her under sail, but I did not critically examine her. IO 20 861 (W. Walker—Cross--I>i*<ciission—Re-direct.) Q.—You cannot say whether you ever saw her sails before 1886. Did you ever see them except when she was under sail in the harbour? A.—No, sir. Q.—How close were you to her? A.—I have been on board. Q.—How close were you to her when you saw her sails_ and she under sail? A.—I cannot say that. Q.—Were you on shore and she on sea? A.—Very likely, with some other vessels. Q.—You testified as to her sails and rigging from your knowledge of Captain McKay's taking good care of a ship? A.—Largely. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How much do you estimate the wear and tear of a vessel like the "Onward" for an eight or.nine months' sealing cruise? The Witness:—I would not allow an3d:hing except as regards rigging and that, of course, might be carried away. The Comme>ssioner on the part of the United States:—You have never computed it? The Witness:—It wo~uld be almost impossible to compute it because it would depend upon accidents or things of that sort—in the ordinary it would not amount to anything on this coast. ■ 30 40 The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:-^What is the yearly depreciation on a vessel ? Q.—There must be a small depreciation. A vessel up to eight or nine years old, she depreciates hardly anything if she is kept in thorough repair, hauled up every year, and painted and her hull re-caulked. She might be in better condition than when built because after vessels are built there is a certain amount of shrinkage, and they will, probably, not be in as good a condition as they will be two or three years afterwards. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Does this same remark apply to the decks? The Witness:—The decks would not be in good condition until they are re-caulked three or four years after building. I say up to eight years the vessel will not depreciate if she is well kept, but that does not apply to the sails, they would have to be renewed. SO The Commissioner on the jpart of Her Majesty:—After she had passed eight or nine years, what then? ■ The Witness:—There must be a certain amount of depreciation every year, of course the owner might spend more than the vessel is worth on her. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty the vessel is kept up well? -I mean if The Witness:—Oh, well, there must be depreciation, I sup- 60 pose, of probably from ten to tiventy per cent, every year. The insurance people make the owners bear one-third, after that if any accident has occurred by going ashore or anything of that sort. Re-direct examination resumed bv Mr. Peters: Q.—You speak, Mr. Walker, of a vessel not depreciating much for the first eight or nine years, and then you say that _ IO 862 (W. Walker—Re-direct—Re-cross. C. Spring—Direct.) after that she would decrease by ten or twenty per cent.? A.—Yes. Q.—Suppose she decreases twenty—beyond that at the end of five years she would be gone altogether? A.—1 qualified that by stating unless the planks had been taken out and replaced. Q.—Can you tell me the length of life that you have known this class of schooner actually to reach—1 mean some of the schooners built of Douglas fir? A.—There -was one lost last year called the "Black Diamond" that was probably 25 or 30 years old. Q.—Have you ever entered into the matter so as to be able to give us the per centage, and what would be the annual depreciation on a vessel? A.—I have not. Q.—Have you ever really made the calculation? A.—I never made the calculation. Q.—So that your statement is, to a certain extent, mere 20 guess work? A.—Yes, sir. Q,—Now, do you know, as a matter of fact, as to the "Favourite"? A.—Well, I think, as I said before as regards the "Favourite," that she was stripped right down to the water's edge and new planking put in. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson; Q.—Do you mean to say that you testified about the "Favourite" before? A.—I was asked in cross-examination by yourself, Mr. Dickinson, if I knew what the "Favourite?- was sold for, and I think I said that it would depend largely upon whether it was before or after the repairs. I know I made that remark. Q.—Might you not have talked with some one else about it and got the idea as to testifying as to the value of the "Favourite"? A.—No, sir, it is right in my memory. Mr. Peters:—Before beginning the examination of Mr. Spring in this case I want to put in evidence all the correspondence—diplomatic correspondence—referred to in the 4° case of the "Carolena" from pages 53 to 70, which is the whole of it from the words "Having read the part of the record that I deem material" on page 53, to Mr. Dickinson's remark on page 70, "We accept it as authentic." Also the chart referred to at page 70, also the letters contained in the record of the "Carolena" case at page 81, marked 15 and 16, and a letter on page 82 marked 17. Mr. Dickinson:—With the same objections that appear on the record. The conditions under which they went in, will HI appear here also. Mr. Peters:—I shall later on give a statement specifically of the witnesses in the "Carolena" case that I want to put in, but this is sufficient now or the present purpose. 30 6° Charles Spring was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: y.—Mr. Spring, where do you reside? A.—At present at Kyuquot. Q.--In 1886 you fitted out the schooner "Onward" for a . sealing A'03'age, I believe? A,—Yes, sir, I (C. Spring—Direct.) Q.—At that time were you interested in any, and how many, trading stations on the west coast of Vancouver Island? A.—Dodge's Cove, Ukulet, Hesquiot, Nootka and Clayoquot. Q.—In 1886 you fitted out the schooner "Onward" for the purpose of sealing? A.—Yes. Q.—In the first place what condition was that vessel in as regards repair at the time of sale? A.—At that time she was in very good order—first rate. Q.—With regard to the sails for instance, were they new or old? A.—Brand new that season. Q.—They were a complete new set? A.—A complete new set. Q.—You started out for a sealing voyage in what month; do you remember? A.—March, I think it was. Q.—And she had on board caneies and boats? A.—Cane>es. Q.—How many canoes? A.—I think eight or nine, I 20 would not be positively sure. Q.—Were these canoes owned by you, or were they owned by the Indians? A.—Partly by myself and partly by the Indians. Q.—When you say "partly by yourself," what do you mean? A.—I had a lien on them as it were, I made an advance on them. Q-—But you were not the absolute owner of the canoes— they partly belonged to you and partly to the Indians? A.— Yes, sir. 30 Q.—I believe you have not got an exact statement of the amount of the advance so as to give particulars, but that is the way it stood, the canoes partly belonged to you, and partly to the Inelians? Q.—The vessel was fitted Had she any boats? A.— One, the stern boat. Q.—Now, I am going to ask you first with reference to these canoes, there was a claim put in at Ottawa by Captain Warren. Were you there when that claim was put in? A.—No, sir. Q.—I Avant you to tell the court in your opinion what the fair value of these canoes on board the ship was? A.—A fair value with everything included, the canoes, the paddles, at that time the bladders that they used as a kind of chafing gear to protect the canoes from the side of the vessel, the sails, spare paddles and spears, I would say $25 each—$25 or $28—-anywhere in that neighborhood. . Q.—You are now speaking of the canoes you had on board the vessel and for that vessel only? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now at this point I will ask you what value did you put on the vessel as she was, prepared for sea, outside of the sealing outfit? I want your opinion of her honest value at that time. A.—I put her down at $4,000, considering that she was worth every bit of that to me at that special time; at that time I considered that I got her at a very low figure, being the beginning of the sealing business practically in Behring Sea. Everything looked bright ahead of us at that time. Q.—At any time during the season of 1886 would you have sold her for that sum? A.—Decidedly not. Q.—Now you have described that this vessel was started on her sealing voyage some time in April. She had on board a large quantity of provisions, I believe? A.—March, I think it was. Q.—Were all these provisions intended for the sealing trip? A,—No, sir. 40 So Go I 1 864 I i | io 20 3° 40 50 60 iC. Spring—Direct.) Q.—A part were for what? A.—A part were for myself, other schooners, and the stations on the coast—different stations on this coast—she was loaded down.. ii-—Have you anj' means, by your books or otherwise, of showing exactly what part was intended for one purpose, and what part for another? A.—In some cases I can show it very clearly, and in other cases it is doubtful. Q.—After leaving Victoria in March did she come back before starting on the Behring Sea trip, or where did you go? Where did she go to to fit out finally for the Behring Sea? A.—She finally left for the Behring Sea from a port called Kyuquot. Q.—Had she been back to Victoria in the meantime for the purpose of refitting? A.—No. Q.—As a matter of fact did you go yourself to Kyuquot for the purpose of superintending her final outfitting for Behring Sea? A.—I did. Q.—You had another vessel fitted out at the same time? A.—The schooner "Favourite" and the "Onward." I was anxious to see them off so I could come back to Victoria. Q.—And you went up to Kyuquot for that purpose? A.—■ Yes, sir. Q.—As a matter of fact did you stay there until the two vessels had sailed? A.—I saw them all off. Q.—Did you, or did you not, give your captain any instructions as to the le-ngth of time he should stay in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, Q.—Will you be kind enough to tell me what the instructions were? A.—The instructions were to the effect that he should proceed to Behring Sea and continue there as long as possible, and to be back some time in the month of September at any rate, to be guided in a measure by Captain McLean—on the schooner "Favourite" at that time—they had agreed to meet in Behring Sea. Q.—This would be Avhich McLean? A.—Captain Alexander McLean, who Avas then master of the "Favourite" in 1886. Q.—For what length of time did you provision the vessel? That is when you were at Kyuquot? A.—Well they had instructions to take everything required to enable the vessel to get back into port, in Victoria, some time in September. Q.—Some time in September? A.—About the middle, the 10th, or 15th, about that time. Q.—Now, you are not in a position, I believe, to tell me the exact amount of provisions that went on board that vessel? A.—No. Q.—Can vou generally tell me what the provisions consisted of ? A.—Yes.. Q.—Of what did they? A.—Flour, pilot bread, beans, rice, tea, coffee, sugar, bacon, lard and potatoes. Q.—Did they have any meats? A.—Yes. Q.—What kind? A.—Corned beef and pork. Q.—In those days were there any canned goods? A.— Some canned goods, tex>. Q.—What sort of canned goods did you have? A.—Milk and peaches; Q.—Would you have canned fish? A.—Yes, canned fish. Q.—Canned salmon, I presume? A.—Yes. ■ Q.—In those, days was it your custom to feed the Indians on much meat? A.—It was not the general custom to do so; in some cases it was given—what happened to be on hand. Mr. Peters:—I have not got all Ihe vouchers, but I will go through what I have. The Witness:—The final outfit at Kyuquot does not appear, so I am positively sure that it did not call for anything that was put on board, but it would not amount to a large sum in any case. Mr. Dickinson:—I did not know but that when you unloaded at the trading station you would take an inventory. The Witness:—That is usually the case, but in some cases not. Since that time I have had a good deal of knocking about and the papers have got mislaid. Q.—As a matter of fact, have you ever made a calculation as to what it would cost per man to provision a vessel for the northern voyage—that is for four or five months. Have you ever made a calculation as to what it would cost per month? A.—I have not; I should think about $5. Q.—You are counting now Indians? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And white men? A.—White men! I don't know, 20 1 never made any calculation, or attempted to make any. I was interested only one season. Q.—Now in "addition to the provisions which were put on board—which you instructed to be put on board—for a certain length of voyage, you had on board some guns? A.— Yes, sir. Q.-—And what was the number? A.—Some ten or twelve I am not sure. Q.—Now, Mr. Spring,- will you tell the court,- were those an expensive class of gun, or were they not? A.—No, they 3° were an old low grade gun. Q.---Breech-loaders? A.—In some cases, in other cases they were the muzzle loaders, but for this, with reference to the muzzle-loading guns they were good guns of that class. Q.—What did you value the guns each at? A.—Take them all around, $25 would not be too much.. Mr. Peters:—I might just state in this connection for the information of the Court, that, in the information laid by Captain Warren at Ottawa, when this gentleman was not 4° there, he put them in at four, as a matter of fact there were twelve. Q.—You say 12 guns, and the inventory shows 12, and they were worth $25 each? A.—Yes.. Q.—Had they ammunition? A.—Yes. Q.—In sending out an Indian crew do you put as ammunition aboard as you would for a white crew? Not near as much. Q.—Do you happen to know what quantity? A.- 50 about two kegs of powder. Q.—That was 50 pounds, was it? A.—That was 50 pounds and about. Q.—You said you had a certain quantity of ammunition, only about 50 pounds—two kegs—did you have a corresponding quantity of shot? A.—Oh, a greater quantity of shot than 50 pounds. Q.—A corresponding quantity, about 200 pounds? A.— About 200 pounds. Q.—I believe the powder you supplied the Indians with 60 was cheap powder? A.—Yes. Q.—Costing about what? A.—About 30c. or 40c. a pound. Q.—Now I want you to look at that inventory; we will go through it quickly. (Handing the witness the inventory.) This is the inventory taken by the officer of the cutter, dated August 15th, 1886, received and marked for identification ""Exhibit No. 32, Claim No. 3." I am getting out this list with the object of ascertaining how much of these articles 55 much A.— -Yes, 866 ■■,' io 20 30 (Charles Spring—Direct.) you allege come within the value of the ship, and what are extras and do not belong to the valuation of the vessel. Three anchors, do they belong to the vessel? A.—Yes. Q.—One adze, two axes—that is extra? A.—Yes. Q.—What are they worth? A.—The adzes $1, the axes $2.50. Q.—Two belts (life), are they extra or do they belong to the ship? A.—That would be partly extra and partly ship. ' Q.—Two blocks, tackle 12 feet? A.—That is ship. Q.—One brace and bit? A.—That is extra. Q.—What value? A.—$1. Q.—One binnacle light—that is ship? A.—Yes. Q.—One broom, corn, that is extra? A.—Yes. Q.—What is that worth? A.—50c. Q.—Chronometer (good)—Do you include that with the ship? A.—That is extra. y.—What do you value it at? A.—$100; in that case the chronometer was returned some two years later Avith some expenses attached to it. y.—Four compasses—were they extra? A.—Yes. y.—What were they for? A.—For the use of the .canoes; boat compasses. Q.—Their value? A.—$12; $3 apiece. Q.—Cables—that is ship? A.—Yes. Q.—Fourteen water casks—are they extra or ship? A.— Extra. Q.—Worth what? A.—$1.25 each. Q.—Then there is a half ton of coal, what is that worth? A.—$4. Q.—One clock—is that extra? Q.—What is that worth? A.- Q.—One chart, Pacific Ocean? 40 50 A.—That is extra. -$5. A.—That is extra. Q.—Value what? A.—$5 that worth? A.—$1. with the ship? A.—That A.—$1. -Oh, that would 60 Q.—One coffee mill—what is Q,—One flag—does that go would be extra. Q.—Value what? A.—$12. Q.—House flag? A.—About $10. Q.—One fog horn—what is that worth? Q.—That was not a patent fog horn? A. be worth $25. Q.—When you say "fog horn," is it a patent arrangement? A.—Yes. I was thinkinc of the short, mouth fog horn. In this case she was fitted with a patent one. The Commissioner on the oart of the United States:—Is not that a horn that the statute reauires; is that an extra connected with sealing; is it not a statutory horn? The witness:—One required for sealing. Direct examination continued by Mr. Peters: Q.—One funnel? A.—$1. Q.—Four globes, lantern? A.—$1 for the four. Q.—Two hammers? A.—$2. Q.—Hamborline, one pound? A.—25c. Q.—Three fathoms of hemp rope, 2|in.? A.—Market value $4. A.—I Q.—One dozen knife sheaths? Q.—One kettle? A.—50c. Q.—Two swinging lamps? A.—$3 for the two. Q.—Now then- is 175 fathoms Manila, 3Jin., new, good— what is that worth? A.—That would come by the pound— I should think about 20c. Q.—You do not know how many pounds there would be? A.—No; that can be arrived at later on, I Mr. Peters:—That is so. Direct examination continued by Mr. Peters: Q.—Then you had a patent log—did you include that in the value of the vessel? A.—That is extra. Q.—What is that worth? A.—$20. Q.—Now, turning to the other side—two boat falls on after da\'its—those are ship? A.—Yes. Q.—Four hundred seal skins—you claim what for them? A.—$7.50 apiece. Q.—How do you base that? A.—On the price seal were at that time in Victoria. Q.—As a matter of fact, in the claim put in originally it was put in at $7. Since that time you have ascertained that there were sales and that $7.50 was paid? A.—Yes: Q.—Two saucepans—what is the value of them? A.- Q.—Three tons of salt—what is the price of salt by the ton? Did you ascertain that by looking at the bills? A.— Yes, sir; I think so. Q.—$14.50 per ton, was it not? A.—That is right. Q.—Then you have got one mainsail, one foresail, one jib, one staysail and flying jib. Three stoves—are they extra? A.—One extra. Q.—Valued at what? A.- Q.—Four saws—value what? A.—$ Q.—One screw clamp—what is that worth? A.—;>>. Q.—One marlin spike? A.- Q.—You say that that is not a part of the ship? A.—No, it is not a part of the ship; it is extra. Q.—Three stools, $1.50—is that right? A.—That is extra. Q.—One saw set, $1—is that right? Q.—One scraper, $1—is that right? Q.—One shovel, $1—is that right? Q.—Two iron tanks. $41—is that the for them? A.—It is. A.—That is right. A.—That is right. A.—That is extra, actual price you gave IO 20 30 40 50 (Charles Spring—Direct.) Q.—Are they extra, or do they'belong to the ship? A.— Extra. Q.—What are they for? A.—To hold drinking water. Q.—Are they kept on deck or below? A.—Below. Q.—Are they specially made for the sealing business? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—That is the actual cost of the two? A,—Actual cost. Q.—I believe that by the claim put in by Captain Warren there were three charged? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—As a matter of fact, were there three or two? A.—■ Only two. Q.—One watch tackle—do you consider that part of the ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—One boom tackle—do yon consider that part of the ship? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Tackle, boats, for hoisting—That is part of the ship? A.—Yes. Q.—25 lbs. white lead, $2.50—is'that right? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—One monkey wrench, $1? A.—Yes. Q.—Were there other articles on the ship besides what I have mentioned that you can recall to mind? A.—Yes, there were certainly quite a number of other articles on board the ship. Q.—Had you not a barometer on board? A.—Yes. Q.—What is that worth? A.—$15. Q.—Were there any other articles that you had on board that you can recall to mind? A.—I do not see any mention here of beef and pork—not mentioned here at all. Q.—As a matter of fact, I have a schedule of provisions alleged to have been taken from her which I have not yet read, containing reference to bread, flour, molasses, beans and lard. Your remark is that you do not see any beef or pork mentioned. As a matter of fact, was there beef and pork on board the vessel when she sailed from Kyuquot? A. —There was; she certainly had, I am positive. Q.—A considerable quantity or a small quantity? A.—A good, fair quantity. Q.—Can you give me any idea in barrels how much beef she had, for instance? A.—There would not be less than three barrels of beef. Q.—How much pork? A.—Two barrels of pork. Q.—Any ham? A.—No ham; there was bacon. The original records have been lost of that load. The goods were put aboard, but there is no trace of them to be found. Q.—Now, of course, you never saw the vessel afterwards? A.—No. Q.—That was the last vou saw of her? A.—That, was the last. Q.—Will 3'ou kindly tell me who her captain was? A.— Captain Daniel Monro. Q.—Is he dead or alive? O.—Who was the mate? Q.—Can you tell me the 60 A.—Dead. A.—John Marketich. names of any other members of the crew? A.—Walter Nightingale and Michael Harkins; those names comprise the white crew. Q.—Michael Harkins I believe you have here? A.—We have him here. Q.—And Nightingale—do you know anything about where he is? A.—He is an able seaman, but I do not know where he is now. Q.—Is he in Yictoria? A.—No. Q.—Is he on this continent, so far as you are aware of? A.—Not that I know of. Q.—He never was in vour emplov before or sincg? A,-"* Never since. Q—What did you intend to do with the vessel in 1887 if yon had had her? A.—I certainly would have sent her off sealing to Behring Sea and on the coast. Q-—You owned another vessel in 1886, the "Favourite?" A.—Yes. Q.—As a matter of fact, did you continue sealing with the "Favourite" in 1887? A.—I did. Q.—Did you make any sales in 1887? A.—Yes. Q-—Will you kindly tell me what price you obtained for them—I mean the Behring Sea catch? A.—$7, I think it was—$7 or $7.50, I would not be sure which. Q.—Who did you sell them to? A.—According to the books—I think they would show—the late Morris Moss bought them. Q.—And that can be shown by your books, and I will examine you about that later on? A.—Yes. Q.—Now did you get any notice from the American author- 20 ities at Sitka in reference »to your ship—giving her up. Did you get any letter? A.—No, sir. Q.—Or from any person? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you get any letters from Captain Monro? A.— Yes, several. Q.—HaAre you got them here? A.—No, I have not. Mr. Peters:—I would like to ask at this stage whether my learned friend is in a position to produce the log of the "Onward?" 3 Mr. Dickinson:—I do not think we haA'e the log. Direct examination continued by Mr. Peters: Q.—Will you tell me about how long you calculate it yould take a vessel to go from Behring Sea to Victoria—the "On- Avard?" A.—Well, everything favorable, it Avould take on an aA'erage from twelve to fourteen days. Q.—That is what you calculate on? A.—Yes. Q.—You said that the vessel would have been back about 40 the middle of September? A.—Somewhere about that time; that is, she was provisioned for that. Q.—Did you giA'e any instructions as to when she should actually leave Behring Sea? A.—The instructions that I gave— The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Should not you confine yourself to the conversation? If there is any part of the conversation that is omitted, that, according to the proper practice, you might call his attention SO to. Q.—Did you, or did you not, give any actual instructions - as to when they should leave Behring Sea? A.—No. Q.—You provisioned them up to what date? A.—To arrive here about the middle of September; to carry them to the middle of September. Q.—There are some other items in connection with your claim. Was the vessel insured when she went out? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you remember what company? A.—I think it 60 was the California Company; I do not positively remember the name of the concern. Q.—Do you remember the amount you had paid for insurance? A.—$240, there is a voucher that will show for it. Q.—Just examine the voucher for insurance and tell me how much you paid? A.—On examination I paid $260, and got a refund of $20. Q.—So that your payment was $240? A.—$240. Q.—What was the insurance on ? A.—It was on the hull. |!L IO 870 (Charles Spring—Direct.) The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Do you know the rates. . The Witness:—No, I could not say just now with reference to the rate; it is in the policy. Direct examination continued by Mr. Peters: Q.—Have you got the policy? A.—No, sir, I haA'e not. Q.—Did you insure the catch besides insuring the hull? A.—Just the hull alone. Q.—You did not insure the catch? A.—The hull and outfit. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It wpuld oblige me if you would ask him what would be a fair rate on the catch. Direct examination continued by Mr. Peters: Q.—Do you know what a fair rate of insurance on the catch would be? A.—I could not say. No, not just now. Q.—You can ascertain that? A.—By making reference. Mr. Peters:—I will be able to prove it by Mr. Hall. Direct examination continued by Mr. Peters: Q.—Did you have to pay any expenses in connection with getting the captain and crew to Sitka? A.—Yes. Q.—Tell me what they were: vouchers 2 and 3 I have here show you paid for "Indians to Sitka,for D. Monro, $5." and 3 "the passage of D. Monro to Sitka," and "the passage of the Indians to Nanaimo." A.—There is not a voucher of that. Q.—Did you pay them anything? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you pay the passage of Captain Monro from Sitka? A.—Yes. Q.—By what ship? A.—The "Idaho," I.gave it to Monro myself so that he would attend to it personally. Q.—How much did you give him? A.—I think it was $50. Q.—Did you pay the passage of the Indians from Nanaimo to Victoria? A.—Yes, they have all been paid. Q.—You have it charged here at $25? A.—Yes. Q.—I find as a matter of fact that Indians- were landed from one of the cutters at Nanaimo; that is a fact, is it not? A.—That is right. Q.—Now, in addition to that, have you yourself gone to any trouble and expense about the matter personally? A.— Yes, I have been to a great deal of trouble. Q.—Did you have much correspondence? A.—Yes, corre- 50 spondence with different people in connection with the matter, both at Ottawa and Sitka; different officials up there. Q.—I see put down "Personal expenses in connection with this matter, $300," then above in the same connection $250— that is the charge you make for that, is it? A.—That is the charge I make. Q.—Now, were you put to any legal expense at Sitka, or was there a charge i made against you ? A.—There was a charge.. Q—What was the amount of the charge? A.—$500. Q.—Did your captain draw on you for it? A.—No, he did not. Q.—Did you actually pay it? A.—It is not actually paid, but it will have to be. Q.—Were you sued for it, and judgment obtained against you? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you know how you were summoned to appear? A.—I think it must have been sent down to me; I really do not remember now. Q.—So you have not paid it yet? A.—Not yet. Q.—Also did you make any arrangement with Mr. Belyea as to pajdng him any sum? I see there are $750 charge here for him. Had you any arrangement with him then? A.—Yes, I had a private arrangement with him then. Q.—That was made when? A.—In the beginning, and later on again. Q.—I want the arrangement made in the beginning? A.— I understood it to be $1000 in each case. Q.—What services was that for? A.—Legal services in every form. I took it to be. Q.—At the time that arrangement was made, had you any idea of a proceeding of this kind? A.—None, whatever. Q.—At that time there was no question of proceeding before a tribunal of this kind, but it was for looking after the claim ? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you go to Ottawa yourself? A.—No. • Q.—Did Mr. Belyea go to Ottawa for you? A.—He was already there; he stayed there. Q.—He afterwards came out and lived here? _ A.—Yes. Q.—Did you pay anything there towards the expenses of Captain Warren? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you remember the amount you paid? A.—In connection with the "Onward" claim, $152. Q.—You actually paid that? A.—Yes. Q.—Your share of the expenses in that case—in that case in connection with the seizure? A.—Certainly. Q.—He went there for nearly everybody interested up there? A.—Yes. Q.—Now, bringing you down to this list that was put in by Captain Warren: He puts in "nine canoes and outfit, $445"—You say you did not charge that amount? A.—No. Q.—You only charged the canoes $25 each? A.—Yes. Q.—When Captain Warren went away did yOu give him a statement of what the canoes were worth ? A.—No. Q.—.And you were not at Ottawa? A.—No. Q.—He puts down there were four shot guns; I have? already explained there were more than that? A.—There were more. Q.—Would there be any difference in the cost of outfitting a vessel between 1886 and 1887, or would it be about the same? A.—Practically the same. Q.—Now, can you give me the size of these canoes, Mr. Spring? A.—20 feet to 22 feet. Q.—Those were the ordinary canoes the Indians used? A.—Yes, the ordinary sealing canoe. Mr. Peters:—I will have to call the witness bye and bye with those letters of Captain Monro's. Mr. Dickinson:—I think, may it please the court, that by refining the testimony we may shorten the time of the Commissioners in examining this witness. Mr. Peters:—We put in the "Carolena" case "Exhibit No. 15," which consisted of a lot of extracts from certain logs of the revenue cutters, and also e*orrespondence; I want to put them in this case, to refer to them in this case, and to add a little more I want an extract of the le>g of the "Corwin, an official copy sent me, dated "Sitka, Friday, September 10th, 1886, at the joint request of Governor A. P. Swine- ford and Judge Lafayette Dawson, the United States District Court, Alaska, 20 British Indians for Nanaimo, B. O, 9 white men for Port Townsend, W. T., were received on board, they 872 (Charles Spring—Direct—Cross.) being part of the crews of the schooners "Onward," "San Diego" and "Thornton," left in destitute circumstances, there being no employment in the region. The United States Marshal furnished the necessary provisions. Charles Spring, recalled by Mr. Peters: Q.—Just tell me the lay the Indians were on on board the 10 "Onward" in 1886? A.—$1 a skin each man. Q-—That is to say, there were two Indians in each canoe, and they would cost you $2 a skin with the Indians? A.— Yes, sir. Q-—And the captain was paid how much? A.—$75 per month. Q.—And the mate? A.—$40 per month. Q.—And the other two white men? A.—$35 a month each. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—No lay for the white men? A.—No. Q.—Nor the captain nor the mate? A.—No. Q.—Was there any lay for any of these men? A.—No, only wages. Q.—That was your way of doing business at that time? A. —Yes. Q,—It has just occurred to me that there was one item neglected. There is a matter of $80 in cash that does not appear there—Avhat is that? A.—It is the money that the 30 captain himself had, and intended to deposit over to me, afterwards taken, away. Q.—That will appear by his correspondence? A.—Yes. y.—Can you tell me the actual amount you advanced to your crew? Have you got a voucher for it? A.—Yes, I think so. Q.—You can find out and tell me when you come back? A.—Yes, the books will show it. The following portion of the record of December 30th is printed now, by consent of counsel, for convenience. Mr. Peters:—If the Commissioners will allow me, I would like to put formally in evidence a copy of the register of the ship "Onward," which I omitted to put in, and which the Commissioners suggested I should put in. Received and marked Exhibit 50 (G.B.) Claim No. 3. The Commissioners then rose at 1 p.m. Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 28, 1896. At 10.30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. Direct examination of Mr. Spring continued by Mr. Peters: Q.—Mr. Spring, you made a statement the other day that Mr. Clark, the lawyer at Sitka, had not drawn on you for that $500? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—As a fact, did he elraw on you; was that statement correct or was it not? A.—It was not correct. Q.—Did he draw on yon? A.—Yes. Q.—But did 37ou pay the draft? A.—No. Q.—And that had passed from your mind? passed from my mind at the time. Q.—Now you made a statement the other day that I also .Avant to ask you about, that you had not received any letter, or did not remember of receiving any letter, from United States authorities about the release of your vessel. Have io you since looked that up to see whether that statement was .correct or not? A.—Well, my statement must have been incorrect at the time that I did not receive any letters. Q.—As a matter of fact, do vou remember of receiving any? A.—No. Q.—Do you remember now of receiving any? A.—Not clearly, but since it appears to be printed, there certainly must have been a letter sent that I have forgotten all about. Mr. Peters:—As a matter of fact, there is a letter which 20 we have here in the correspondence in December, 1887, but Mr. Spring said he did not remember about sending.it then, but he thinks now on seeing the letter that he must have got it. Witness:—I must have. Mr. Peters:—The letter that I refer to is the letter, contained in the official correspondence from Mr. Barton Atkins to Mr. C. Spring, dated the 5th of December, 1S87, which will be found in Vol. 5, American reprint, page 183. Q.—Now, Mr. Spring, did Captain Monro take with him any cash when he went away? A.—Yes. Q.—What amount? A.—The amount of $500; that is the amount he was instructed to take. Q.—I believe he accounted to you for the disposal of a considerable portion of that? A.—Yes. Q.—Which account you will have here in a moment? A.— Yes. Q.—Did you, as a matter of fact, pay the captain, mate, 4° white men and hunters on board your ship for all their work? A.—Yes, fully. A.—In some cases up to the time and in others up to the time of 3o Q— Up to what time? of the arrival in Victoria, seizure. Q.—Which ones were vi A.—Marketich. Q.—Was the captain? Q.—Were the seamen? So 60 id up to the arrival in Victoria? A.—The captain also. A.—Up to the time of seizure. Q.—And the Indians, what were they paid? A.—They Avere paid for all the skins they had caught up to the time of seizure. Q.—Whether seized or not? Some skins were not seized? A.—That is right. Q.—Did you pay them on the skins that were seized as well as those not seized? A.—Yes, on all the skins, seized and not seized. -Q.—So that, so far as you are concerned, you paid everybody? A.—Everyboely. Q.—I want to ask you another thing in addition to the articles you mentioned the other day as being on board the ship. Had you any nautical instruments on board the ship A.—There were. Q.—Were they returned to you? A.—Not all of them. Q.—What nautical instruments were they? A.—The sextant was not returned. Q.—What was the value of it? A.—$25, I think it was. 874 IO 20 30 50 60 got? A.— "Favourite." Moss, catch? A. A.- (Charles Spring—Direct—Cross.) Q.—You referred the other day to a considerable quantity of manila rope. That was mentioned in the inventory. Have you since looked at the inventory to see what that manila rope cost? Have you looked at the vouchers? A.—I examined the vouchers the other day, and from what I could make out it certainly' must apply to the same as that which is shown in the inventory. Q.—That is voucher No. 36, I think. Just look at it and see? A.—(Examining)—Yes. 170 pounds of 2| manila, $30.60. Q.—It is sold by the pound, is it? A.—It is usually charged by weight, but in this case it seems to be carried out by the quantit3'. j Q.—What was the price of skins in 1887 that you received? A.—$7. Q.—Was that the .market price, or what you That is the best price that I got. Q.—You got them from what ship? A.—The Q.—In 1887? A.—In 1887. Q.—Then you sold to whom? A.—To Morris Q.—What did you realize for the Behring Sea -$7. Q.—Did you sell any at a less price than $7 in 1887? Yes, I did. Q.—For what price? A.—For $5. Q.—That was the spring catch? A.—That was later on in the same year. Late in the season, a considerable time after all the schooners had arrived in, quite a few skins had arrived here, and mine being the last, of course, everybody had been supplied. Q.—In the early part of the season what time did you sell for $7? A.—To the middle of September, 1 think. Q.—Did you have any coast catch that year? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you sell that? A.—Yes. Q.—When? A.—During the spring. Q.—Do you remember the price of the coast catch? 40 Mr. Dickinson:—Spring of 1888? Witness:—Spring of 1887. That, would average about $6. Q.—Now, when you say average, does that include the price for all sizes, down to gray pups and all? A.—Yes. Q.—What time of the year did you sell your coast catch? A.—During the month of" April; during the "latter part of April and beginning of May. Q.—There is no trouble in getting at what you paid the Indians. Were they paid their full lay? A.—Full. Q.—That is to say, each skin cost you $2? A.—Yes, by the Indians. Q.—Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—I think you said in your direct examination the other day, Mr. Spring, that you owned part of the canoes and the Indians owned a part, because you had a lien on the canoes by reason of advances made. Did you state that? A.—I said so, yes. Q.—The advance that you made to the Indians, however, is a part of the money which you charged as paid to them, is it hot? A.—In some cases. Q.—So, if you recover for the value of the canoes, so far as your lien is concerned and the money which you claimed to pay the Indians you would be recovering the same money twice in some instances? A.—In some instances, but In such a case as that the Indians would be charged. Q.—What do you mean by that? A.—When I say the Indians, I mean the Indian hunters would be charged, that 87 75 IO 20 (Charles Spring—Cross.) would be deducted, ana in other cases it was a direct purchase from the Indian that owned the canoe in order to make the complement to send out. Q.—That was in the case where you directly purchased the canoe? A.—Yes. Q.—How many canoes did you directly purchase? A.—I should think some three or four. Q.—And the others you only had a lien upon? A.—A lien upon some and others again they owned. Q.—You only purchased three or four of the canoes yourself? A.—Yes, about that number. Q.—The lien whieth you claim upon them constituted a part of their wages which they got in the end? A.— I should think so. I think likely it would be so. Q.—What did you pay for those three or four canoes that you did own? A.—Various prices. Size and age had a good deal to do with it. Q.—Something about what they cost; we do not care for a dollar. A.—From' $10 to $12. Q.—Would that include the outfit of the canoes, the paddles? A.—Not at all. Q.—The canoe naked would cost beisveen $10 and $12? A.—That is just the bare canoe. Q.—And those canoes were about 20 to 22 feet long? A.—About that. In this particular case, of course, I was obliged to take what canoes I could get. At that stage of the business we were commencing to think about going to 3° Behring Sea, and that season was about the first outside of the "Favourite" of any vessel that had gone up to Behring Sea in my case. Q.—Where did you buy those canoes? A.—At a called Jackleslet—Battle Bay. Q.—How far is it from Kyuquot? A.—About 14 or 15 miles. Q.—And about how far from Clayoquot Sound? A.—-A Tittle bit over 100 miles. Q.—North or south? A.—North. Q.—You have examined the inventory, Mr. Spring, which purports to have been made by the officers of the cutter that seized the "Onward?" A.—Yes. Q.—Now, with the exception of the barrels of pork and corned beef, do you know of any provisions which were aboard the "Onward" when she was seized other than those that are inventoried here? A.—Well, I couldn't say directly myself, I would have to depend on other people; the captain had his instructions to take his outfit from the store in that case. Q.—You cannot tell from your own personal knowledge? A.—No, I wouleba't venture to state, because I don't know. Everything was put on that was required. Q.—You were asked what it cost to sustain a white man for a month. You said you never had had any experience. Did you never have a white crew out? A.—Yes. Q.—What year? A.—1887. Q.—What boat? A.—The "Favourite." Q.—You were on the boat yourself, were -you not? A.— Part of the season. Q.—In Behring Sea yourself? A.—Not in Behring Sea. Q.—I thought that where you made a copy of the log of the "Favourite," in Behring Sea? A.—No, it was the following year, 1888. Q.—You were on the "Favourite," however, when she was outfitted in 1887? A.—The beginning of the season, the spring season. 40 60 place 876 IO 20 30 40 50 60 (Charles Spring—Cross.) Q.—Do you know what it cost for a white man that year? A.—No, I do not. Q.—Have you no idea?. A.—I never went into it at all; I just simply fitted out that season, in order to gratify a certain wish of my own, in order to get the best of some of the Indian hunters, and after that was gratified I went on with Indians again. Q.—Would not your books show the total cost of getting the "Favourite" ready for the voyage of 1887? A.—Yes, certainly, but I neA'er went into that examination. Q.—You could tell us how much per man it cost in 1887 by an inspection of your books? A.—I think so. Q.—Will you do that, Mr. Spring? A.—Yes, certainty- Q.—Captain McLean was oA'er at Kyuquot when the "Favourite" and "Onward" started for Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—And you went up from Victoria on • the "Favourite" with Captain Alexander McLean up to Kyuquot? A.—Not all the way, no. Q.—Part of the way? A.—Part of the way, yes. Q.—You never had been in Behring Sea before that time, had you, Mr. Spring, sealing? A.—No. Q.—And you entrusted to Captain Alexander McLean the management of the "Favourite" and "Onward" in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, his advice would be followed. Q.—It would be followed by the captain of the "Onward" as to when she would leave the sea? A.—Yes. Q.—And, as a matter of fact, you know that the "Onward" kept in the company of the "Favourite" up to the time she was seized? A.—I think it is likely; I don't know exactly. Q.—Do you know that that is the report of the captain of the "Onward?" A.—They were in company at times; I don't know whether it means from day to day or not. Q.—You do not know what time the season ended in Behr- in Sea in 1886, nor what time it was advisable to leave the , Sea? A.—No, only from what I would be able to find out from other experienced men. Q.—So that you left that matter to Captain McLean? A.—Yes, after giving my personal instructions. Q.—You did not give any letter of instructions to those captains, did you? A.—No, I wasn't able to at that time, because I didn't know I would succeed in getting the vessel off, and after I did it had to be verbally. Q.—You stated you expected the boats back here from the 10th to the 15th of September, I believe? A.—Outfitted for that time; somewhere in that neighborhood. Q.—You placed a value of $25 on each of those guns. You do not mean that that was the real worth of the guns at that time? Or was that the cost of guns of that style and quality? A.—Well, that is the price that those guns woul'3 be valued at at that time. Q.—Those particular guns? A.—Take it all through for the people that owned those guns, of course those guns are not all mine— Q.—We want to know all about that: How many of those guns do you claim? A:—I claim them all. Mr. Peters:—I submit at this point that it matters not to whom those guns belong, we have a right to recover for them. My contention is that it matters not to whom they belong. When the money is paid by the United States Government, of course it will be for the British Government to see that the people who own the articles are paid for them. Mr. Dickinson:—If the United States are liable, they want to pay for the guns, unless some of this property belongs to people who cannot be paid under the convention. All we want are the facts. Q.—How many of the guns are yours, Mr. Spring? A.—■ Oh, about six or seven; somewhere about there; had twelve altogether. Q.—And to whom did the others belong? A.—They belonged to Indians and white men. Q.—To the hunters aboard the boat? A.—Some of the hunters and some of the crew. Q.—You have put in a claim heretofore against the United States Government, in which you stated that the "Onward" took 400 skins, and you deducted those four hundred skins from an estimated catch for the season, and claimed from the United States Government the balance. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Warren, that evidently is in writing. The proper course is to show him the claim. Mr. Warren:—I am asking him if he has put in such a claim. Witness:—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of. the United States:—If you are going into the contents of it, the proper course is to show it to him. The Commissioners want to know with accuracy what it is if you are going to refer to it at all. The better way is to pursue the usual course, then we will know where we are. By Mr. Warren:—Q.—I refer to the copy of affidavit of Mr. Spring found on page 60, Vol. 5, of the American Reprint. Now, Mr. Spring, you know that the "Onward" took more than 400 skins in Behring Sea that year, do you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you have not mentioned that in the affidavit nor in your testimon3' here, have you? A.—I really don't know. Q.—How many more did the "Onward" take in Behring Sea than the 400? A.—The amount that was transferred to the "Favourite." Q.—How many was that? A.—507 or 508, I am not sure. Q.—That makes 907 skins that the "Onward" took in Beh- 40 ring Sea in 1886 instead of 400, does it not? A.—Yes. Q.—Now that would make a difference in your claim—a considerable difference? A.—Oh, yes, certainly'it would. Q.—And the 507 skins that were transferred from TEe "Onward" to the "Favourite" and sent down to Victoria, you had the benefit of, did 3'ou not? A.—Yes. Q.—And they were all caught in Behring Sea? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you remember now whether you had eight or nine -I don't remember positively, but I A.—She must have had a canoes in the believe nine. Q.—Did she have a stern boat? stern boat. Q.—Do you know whether she did or not? A.—I do not; she must have had; I,think she did. I didn't see it on the inventory at all. Q.—What month was it that you were over to Kyuquot, when the "Onward" started for Behring Sea? A.—June", I think. Q.—About what time in June? A.—It would be some go time about the beginning of June; the latter end of May or the beginning of June; yes, beginning of June. Q.—How many days were the "Favourite" and "Onward" in Kyuquot? A.—Three or four days, I think. Q.—And they sailed direct for Behring Sea; they did not seal on the way up, did they? A.—I don't know; I never heard any report to the effect of sealing on the way up. Q.—They did not start with the intention of sealing on the way up? A.—Not in those days; it wasn't likely; fhey 878 IO 3° (Charles Spring—Cross.) would call in somewhere for water, and then go to Behring Sea. Q.—By they, I mean the "Onward?" A.—Yes. Q.—You stated that if you had had the "Onward" in 1887 that you would have sent her to Behring Sea, and told about the bright outlook in 1886 for sealing schooners. Did you not have a sealing schooner here in the harbor of Victoria in 1886 doing nothing? A.—I didn't quite catch the question. - Q-—Did you not have a sealing schooner here in the harbor of Victoria in 1886? A.—No. Q.—Where was the "Kate?" A.—She was employed sealing, and after sealing she would be commissioned to attend to the trading business on the coast. Q,—She was not employed in sealing in Behring Sea? A. —No, I didn't think it was necessary to send her* at that time; in fact, I don't think I could have done so for two reasons: I 20 required her presence here on the coast; I' should have had one vessel, at least. I sent off what I could and retained one; that was the "Kate," for business on the coast. Q.—;Did you not try to get a crew for the "Kate" to go into Behring Sea in 1886? A.—I did not. Q.—Who was it testified here the other day that you could not get a crew for her? A.—Whoever did I don't know; they had no right to do so, I don't think. Q.—That was not so? A.—No, I had her on the coast all right enough; I would not send her to Behring Sea because I needed her here to attend to freighting and trading. Q.—You said there were two reasons. What is the other? A.—Well, the probability of not being able tO get a crew to send her to Behring Sea with; that is the only reason. Q.—You could have got a little boat here that was suitable to make trips over to your trading post, could you not, at a fair charter value, in 1886? A.—I don't think so. No, not to answer the purposes; not practical. Q.—What was the tonnage of the "Kate?" A.—61 tons, I 40 think. Q.—What boat did yon send over to the trading posts in 1887? A.^In 1887 the "Kate" was in Behring Sea. Q.—So was the "Favourite?" A.—Yes. Q.—What boat did you send over to the trading posts? A. —I had made arrangements at the beginning of the season to see that every place was properly supplied before these vessels all left the coast; so you see it was covered in that Avay. Q.—So if you had wanted the "Kate" in Behring Sea in 1886 you could have made the same arrangement in 1886? A.—We were not altogether sure about the business at that time; it was only after 1886 that we became positive that Behring Sea was a place worth while looking after. Q.—Did you take the "Kate" over on the coast loaded heavily on these trips in 1886? A.—Yes, always, '"y _And you wanted a boat of large carrying capacity? A. —Yes, any boat of her size would be sufficient. y.—The "Onward" was not large enough? A.—Oh, yes; she could have done it. y.—why did you not send the large boat to Behring Sea in 1886 and keep the "Onward" down here? A.—The "Kate" was not altogether so well adapted, we thought at that time, but since that time we have put her in perfect trim. y.—Mr. Spring, you have placed a value upon the "On- Avard" in the year 1886, and I believe the question was asked you .what do you consider her worth to you under the circumstances at that time, and whether or not you would have 5o 60 sold her for $4,000. Did 37ou intend to testify to the market value of the "Onward" in 1886? A.—No, no; just what she was worth to myself engaged in that business, having noth ing to bear on the market whatever. Q.—You stated that the value of skins in 1886 was $7.50. Have you heretofore placed the value upon skins in 1886 at 77? A.—Yes, it was mentioned, $7. Q.T-Why do you say $7.50 now? A.—Well, that was made in error by myself. I should not have done so. I am not positive whether $7.50 would be right or not, but $7 is. Q.—Well, had you not better have it $7 instead of $7.50 if you are positive $7 is.right and are not positive about the 17.50? A.—I was intending to let that matter stand in order to establish the point. Q.—I do not exactly catch your meaning. A.—That was something I intended to allow to stand until we could establish it by the market price. I had an idea that $7.50 was the proper price to charge, therefore I put it in that form, although $7 was asked for according to the claims. Q.—Well, $7 was the market Aralue, was it, of skins in 1886? A.—I thought so at the time, but since then I have been led to believe that $7.50 was the price. Whatever we find it to be. it will have to be that. Mr. Peters:—It has already been proved that skins sold at $7.50 that year. 30 Q.—Who sold the skins of the "Onward" in the year 1886? A.—The skins from the "Onward," do you mean? Q.—Yes; the 507 skins that came down here? A.—Capt. Alexander McLean, I believe. Q.—And he paid the lay of the Indians out of the proceeds of the sale, did he not? A.—Yes, I think so; they seemed to be satisfied so far as the skins were concerned. ? Q.—That is the Indians off the "Onward?". A.—Yes. y.—1 believe William Spring was alive in 1885, was he not? A.—No. '■" Q.—Was Mr. Francis ever in business with you? A.— Yes. Q.—And McLean. Francis and you were in business together in 1885? A.—Yes. Q.—That is Captain Alexander McLean"? A.—Yes. Q.—And what was Mr. Francis' name? A.—Peter. Q.—And yours is Charles Spring? A.—Yes. Q.—And you were partners? A.—Yes. Q.—And the "Onward" was one of the vessels in that year 5° which was owned by this partnership? A.—Yes. Q.—Will you tell the Court at what valuation the "Onward" was put into the partnership arrangement in the year 1885? Mr. Peters:—As it is all in writing, I would suggest that you would speak from your book? A.—As I was going to say, I think it would be better to allow the books to speak for themselves. 60 Q.—JBtave you your book here? A.—Yes. Q.—I have not asked for the books; you can tell the figures. A.—$2£00 at that time, taking into consideration— Q.—Wait a moment.; you have answered the question. At what time in 1885 was that? A.—That was in '84; that is when I took her over; I put her in at the valuation to the concern, at the same price as I took her over from the firm of William Spring & Co. I WSi 880 (Charles Spring—Cross.) Q.—I asked you about 1885, and you have been talking about i884? A.—It was in '84 that she was taken over. Q.—1884 that she was valued for the purposes of the partnership of Alexander McLean, Peter Francis and Charles Spring at $2200? A.—Yes. Q.—You say you took her over from the estate of William Spring; what year did you take her? A.—1884. Q.—Just prior to the time the other partnership was formed? A.—Yes. Q.—You were one of the trustees of the estate of your father, were you, and an executor? A.—Yes. Q.—And you sold the "Onward" to yourself? A.—Yes. Q.—To anyone else, or to yourself alone? A.—Well, at that time it could not be altogether myself, because it was just joining in; and three of us were taking the late concern over. Q.—When you bought the "Onward" from the estate of 20 your father, you bought for the purpose of going into this partnership, which was immediately thereafter formed; is that the idea? A.—It turned out practically so; but whether it would have been so or not, whether other parties would have come in or not, I would have taken her over, anyway. Q.—Who paid the estate of your father for the "Onward," you, or you and these two men? A.—The concern, C. Spring & Co. ' * Q.—The concern of C. Spring & Co., was made up of Alexander McLean, Peter Francis and yourself? A.—Yes. Q.—Then it practically amounts to this, that that partnership purchased the "Onward" from the estate of your father? A.—Yes. Q.—And you were the trustee of your father's estate? A.—One of them. Q.—And you negotiated this sale of the "Onward?" A.— Not directly; it was negotiated by me through Mr. Lubbe. Q.—Then you and Mr. Lubbe handled the sale? A.—Yes. Q.—Mr. Theodore Lubbe? A.—Yes. Q.—And he is the gentleman who was on the stand the other day? A.—Yes. Q.—And he was your co-executor and co-trustee, was he not? A.—No. Q.—Was he not one of the trustees of your father's estate? A.—No, he was one of the— Q.—One of the what? A.—One of the firm of William Spring. Q.—He was in business with your father at the time of your father's death? A.—Yes. Q.—Was there an of your father after would not be sure. Q—1 suppose appraisement made upon the propertv his death? A.—Yes, I think so; I :hat appraisement would be filed in the father's estate was probated? A.—Very Court where your likely. Q.—That is the practice here, is it not? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you know, where if is yourself? A—.Well, the books of William Spring & Co. would show that; I wouldn't say positively that the books had been closed at that date or not. wSB& Q.—Who was in partnership with your father at the time of his death, Mr. Theodore Lubbe and who else? A.—Peter Francis. Q.—And that partnership owned the "Onward?" A.—■ Yes. IO 20 (Charles Spring—Cross.) Q-—So that when this sale was made to yourself or to the partnership of C. Spring & Co., composed of Alexander McLean, Peter Francis and yourself, Mr. Theodore Lubbe consented to a sale of the "Onward" at $2200? A.—Yes. Q.—So it was not altogether a sale made by you and your co-executors and co-trustees, representing the estate of William Spring, but was a sale by partnership, one member of was the estate of your father? A.—Yes, the death of William Spring caused the winding up of the old concern. Q.—When did Peter Francis go out of the firm of C. Spring & Co. ? A.—I don't remember exactly the date. Q.—What year? A.—1885, I think; some time in 1885. Q-—What name did the partnership go by after that? A.— C. Spring & Co. Q.—Did you take in any new partners to take the place of Mr. Francis? A.—No. Q.—Francis died? A.—Yes. Q-—Then there was just yourself and Alexander McLean after the death-of Mr. Francis? A.—That was all. Q.—You stated that the "Onward" was valued at $2,200. Are you perfectly certain that it was $2,200? A.—Yes. Q-—You have looked at it recently so as to refresh your recollection ? A.—Yes. Q-—When was that partnership between you and Alexan- 30 der McLean dissolved fina of 1886. Q.—What month in 1886? Q.—And you retaiued your the partnership, in the claim United States Government? 40 SO Go A.—At the end of the season A.—December, I think, interest, whatever it was, in of the "Onward" against the A.—Yes. Q.—And Alexander McLean retained whatever his interest was in the partnership of C. Spring & Co. in the claim against the United States Government? A.—Yes. Q.—When 3'ou were stating that the valuation put upon the "Onward" was $2,200, I believe you desired to make some explanation. Now tell the Commissioners what you wished to say. A.—At the time the transfer was made, when I took the vessel over, the matter was considered in this respect, that I, being connected in the family, was in a position to take the vessels over and the property at a lower rate than what anybody else would have been able to take it over, putting her in at $2,200. A higher figure than that would have been asked for her if it had been anybody outside of the concern. Q.—Theodore Lubbe only received his interest at $2,200, did he? A.—Yes, he was satisfied to let it go through my connections; only in that way. y.—What was his interest in the partnership of William Spring & Co.? A.—One-third. This he did not consider a very serious point with him. y.—He was one-third owner of the "Onward?" A.—Yes. y.—And was Peter Francis a one-third owner? A.-^-Yes. y.—And the estate of your father owned the other third? A.—Yes. y. So that, so far as your connection with the estate of your father was concerned, that would only refer to one- third of the boat, while two-thirds of the boat was owned by men who were in existence? A.—Yes. y.—You have testified that you were a trustee of your father's estate. You do not mean to say that you could have sold that boat to somebody else rather than yourself for more money, and you, as a trustee of your father's estate, did not do that? A.—I don't know. I haven't any doubt if we had held it longer-^ 56 882 (Charles Spring—Cross.) Q.—Wait a moment. I asked you whether you had any offers from anybody else at a higher price? A.—No; I did not look for any. Q.—There has been some question here about the various sales of the schooner "Favourite," and as to whether or not a valuation was placed on her in 1886. Now Captain Alexander McLean did not retain— Mr. Peters:—I do not know whether we ought to go into the valuation of the "Favourite" in this case. Mr. Warren:—I am going to prove the fact; going to ask what it was—the valuation placed upon the property. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You want to show that that was the year in which the valuation was placed to which Mr. McLean referred? Mr. Warren:—Yes. Mr. Peters:—I do not see what that has got to do with this case. My learned friend does not state the thing correctly. The question was asked, was there a sale of her in 1886? A valuation and sale are two different things. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I supposed the whole thing was agreed on at the time and understood among counsel, and that would end it. It was stated on one side that the sale he referred to in 1886 was with reference to adjusting partnership matters, and it was 3° not objected to on the other side. • That would seem to be the end of it. Mr. Warren:—That is exactly as we understood it. If it is understood that way by the other side, we rest the matter. Mr, Peters:—I stated fully what I then understood, and stated it distinctly, and I do not see what we want it down here again for. By Mr. Warren: Q.—The "Favourite" was concerneel in this dissolution of December, 1886, that you have spoken of, was she not, Mr. Spring? A.—Yes. The Commissioner on the part Offhe United States:—I do not see how that settles it, Mr. Warren. Mr. Warren:—He states the partnership was dissolved in December, 1886, and the value of thei "Favourite" was involved in that dissolution. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—As I understand it, there may be a serious question here. I understock! him to say that Captain McLean retained his interest, and he retained his interest. Mr. Warren:—The last question I asked him was, was the avourite" involved in that, and he said yes. The Commissioner on the part of-the United States:—But he does not say that there was any violation of the "Favourite." By Mr. Warren:—Q.—Was the valuation of the "Favourite" in 1886 fixed, or was there a valuation fixed upon the "Favourite" in this dissolution which took place in December, 1886 between you and Alexander McLean? A.—There Avas a valuation put on. Q.—Who came down here from Sitka and notified you that the "Onward" had been seized? A.—Previous to anyone (Charles Spring—Cross/ coming down to inform me of the fact, I had received a letter from Captain Munro, her master. Q.—Have you that letter? A.—Yes. Q.—Was there anybody down here to see you personally about the matter of the seizure? A.—Yes. y._Who? A.—Clark. Q.—What time? A.—He had been down here on one or 10 two occasions before last winter. But he had never been able to meet me—positively last winter. Q.—I am not asking you about a thing so recent as that. Was there anyone here in 1886? A.—Oh, no; nobody outside of the captain. Q.—You knew that Mr. Clark was retained to represent you at Sitka, did you not? A.—Yes. Q.—When did you first know that? A.—By the captain's letter. Q.—Are you able to state the date of the letter? A.—No. Mr. Peters:—I said I was going to put all the letters iu. Mr. Warren:—I want the date of that letter. Mr. Peters:—It does not appear to have any date. By Mr. Warren:—Q.—Do you.know the'date you received the first letter from Captain Munro? A.—No, I haven't the remotest idea of the date. Mr. Peters:—It is evidently written shortly after the seizure. By Mr. Warren:—Q.—He wrote you a letter which bears .date Sitka, Alaska, September 3, 1886, which I believe is the second letter. Do you know how long after the receipt of the first letter before you received the second one? A.— No. I couldn't say. Q.—But you did receive this letter, which is dated Septem- -ber 3, at Sitka? A.—Yes, I received it. Q.—You put an answer in at Sitka, in the proceedings, did you not? A.—I wrote an answer to the Captain's letter Q.—No; an answer to the libel filed against— Mr. Peters:—That will all appear by the record which I intend to put in. Witness:—I think so; I don't exactly remember the or-der in which business was done. Q.—I am not trying to prove the record by you, I simply want to know whether you advised or instructed an^answer to be put in? A.—Yes> I think there must have been. Q.—That does not answer my question. Did you instruct the captain, or lawyer or anybody representing you to have an answer filed? A.—Captain Munro had already attended . to all that, and I depended on him as a competent man to look after it. He had already informed me by a letter, which you will see there, that he had looked after the business.. 6o Therefore I alloAved it to rest, and I depended on him to manage it for me. Q.—Did he inform you that Mr. C your interests there? A.—Yes. Q.—-Did you object to Mr. Clark representing you as an attorney? A.—I think there was some objection at the time, but I cannot bring it to mind. But finally I concluded to let him go on. was representing 884 (Charles Spring—Cross.) Q.—You agreed to Mr. Clark acting as your attorney up there? A.—Yes. Q.—And not referring to the case of the "Onward," I am asking now, how long did Mr. Clark continue to represent you? A.—All along. Q.—So that whatever orders were given in the ease of the ''Onward," at whatever stage, he would still be your attorney? A.—Yes, in that matter. Q.—And he lived at Sitka, did he not? A.—I believe so. Q.—He was not an attorney sent from here? A.—Not at that time. Q.—How long did he continue to live in Sitka after the date of the seizure of the "Onward?" A.—I don't know. Q.—You knoAV something about it? A.—No, I haven't any idea at all. Q.—You say that he doesn't live down here now, or doesn't live at Sitka noAV? A.—1 don't know; he has been living in Victoria, that I know, but how long I don't know. He has been living between here and there. Q.—Mr. Clark did not live in Victoria, at least, until after the year 1888,1 believe? A.—That is right; not until after. Q.—So that, so far as you know, he was in Sitka during the period from the seizure of the "Onward" up to the end of the year 1888? A.—I should think so; yes, sir. Q.—And did you receive letters from Mr. Clark with reference to the seizure of the "Onward" from time to time? A. —Yes. Q.—From Sitka? A.—From Sitka. A.- Q.—Have vou any of those letters from Mr. Clark? Ye*s. -Q.—This partnership of C. Spring & Co. durine the life of Peter Francis, when there were three of you in the firm, was emrasred in the business conducted over on the west coast. a!so, was it not? A.—Yes, sir; that was the business besides the sealing. Q.—So that the partnership of C. Soring & Co. conducted the business at the tradine stations along the west coast as well as the sending out of these vessels engaged in sealing? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that remained so during the year 1886, after the death of Peter Francis? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know the date of Mr. Francis' death? A.— Not positively just now. 1 could arrive at it all right enough. It should be some time along, I think, in June or July. It may have been May; I don't know, 1885. Q.—You stated that you paid Mr. Marketich for his services up to the time that he arrived at Victoria? A.—Yes. Q.—You made an affidavit, Mr. Spring, and there must be an error in it. I wish you would explain it. This affidavit I referred to once before, page 60, volume 5, of the American reprint. In reference to the "Onward," you stated that she carried a crew of 20 men, and estimated wages due to the master and men for four months from the 12th day of June to the time of her return, to Victoria at $7,500. You did not mean that, did you, or was that a misprint? Mr. Dickinson:—Make your own statement of that, Mr. Spring; look it over yourself. A.—(Examining)—That must be a misprint. Mr. Dickinson:—You remember what you stated at that time? A.—I haven't any idea just now. By Mr. Warren; 20 (Charles Sprin Q.—In that aflidaAut, Mr. Spring, will you look at it and tell the Commissioners whether you did .not place the value of skins in 1886 at $7? A.—$7. Mr. Dickinson:—Let it be understood that we do not offer this statement as to the $7,500 to reflect.at all upon the witness. We are confident, after listening to the witness on this stand, that it is a mistake rather than a mis-statement of his. ' Mr. Peters:—I will point out to the Court that, after all, that statement may really be perfectly explainable, because he was then estimating, according to that very affidavit, that they would catch something like 3,000 seals; and if they caught 3,000 seals it Avould appear at once that there would be $6,000 coming to the hunters. That is only a calculation. I think that all reference to this had better go out of the notes. Mr. Dickinson:—Except this, at some future time—we will be fair about it—this might be discovered, and if not explained it might reflect upon the witness. Mr. Peters:—We understand it now. Mr. Diskinson:—But this record goes to others. Mr. Warren;—With the understanding, Mr. Spring, that you will look up your books pertaining to the "Favourite" for the year 18S7, and ascertain for the Commissioners the price per white man for sustaining him a month, I believe that is all. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—You Avere asked as to the value of skins in 1886, and you said you put them down at $7.50 in your evidence here the other day. As a matter of fact, you originally put them down at $7, I believe? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you hear of a sale afterwards at a higher price? A.—I heard something to influence me and cause me to make $7.50 the amount. Q.—Then, to come down to the practical question, you actually heard that Mr. Munsie had sold for that amount? A. —Yes. Q.—And you raised your claim on account of hearing of that sale? A.—Yes. Q.—So that AA'hat 3-ou claim is that 3'ou want to get the highest price, whatever it is? A.—Yes. Q.—You got a letter from Captain Munro, Avhich is dated September 3rd, 1886, and this is the letter you got from him, is it not? (Handing witness letter.) This is his writing? A.—(Examining)—That is his writing. Mr. Peters:—I want to put this letter in evidence. It is dated at Sitka, September 3rd, 1886, and reads as follows: "Dear Sir: Your letters of 22nd and 23rd ult. duly received and contents very carefully noted. When I wrote you from 6o Ounalaska I did not think affairs was going to take such a serious turn. Our vessels was dismantled, the skins taken on shore in charge of the Commercial Company. The Indians and Frenchey and the two boys were sent here on the schooner "San Diego." I was taken here on the cutter that captured us. We were taken ashore here in charge of the marshal and marched to the court house to be arraigned before the judge and the district attorney. Of course we pleaded not guilty, and was asked if we would be tried by a jury or 40 ■;o 8S6 (Charles Spring—Re-direct.) hot. I asked for time to consider, but was told by the court that I would have to decide at once. Being in a strange place, I thought I would want a jury, but after being let out on our own recognizance we sought a lawyer to take the case up for us, agreeing to pay him $500 in each case. They appeared for us next morning and demanded a jury. The "Thornton" case was taken up first. The jury convicted himself and mate, imposing a fine of $500 and $300, and a month's imprisonment each. The "San Diego" was tried without a jury, and the captain got two months and his mate one month imprisonment. My case will be tried on the 6th, and I don't expect to come much better than the "Thornton" case, without I get a more respectable jury than the "Thornton" had. But it appears they are determined to convict us all. Frenchey and I are imprisoned with the rest of the crowd, so we can't get much news from outside. I asked the lawyer to write you and explain matters to you, as he 20 will be able to do it better than I can. When I wrote you from Ounalaska I asked the captain of the cutter what he was going to do with us, but 1 got no satisfaction, only that I would get justice. They were expecting a judge up from 'Frisco at the time. Had I known we were coming here 1 would have mentioned it in my letter, so you might take steps to protect me here; but it would "hot be of much use, as this affair can't be settled here. I had about $80 in silver in a bag when we were taken on board the cutter, that I received for clothes I sold the Indians at Ounalaska at reduced prices; and as we were just to live with the sailors, and they being a hard lot, I asked the captain if he would put it in his safe for me until I got to Sitka. He asked me if it was my own money or the ship's; I told him it was my own; he sealed the bag and put it away; his second officer witnessed it. On arrival at Sitka he placed it in the hands of the marshal, and I have not seen it since. I suppose I was wrong in-giving it to him; but he told me that personal property was respected. I am going to see the captain now, and I think it is likely he will hand it over. Of course I told him I thought I was handing it to a gentleman. I wrote Captain McLean a long letter and told him about the sudden disappearance of James Ogilvie of the schooner "Carolena," and I am of the opinion that he will never be found alive. "On the arrival of the "San Diego" here our Indians were all put on shore to shift for themselves, and I believe they are faring very slim. I spoke to the judge and the marshal about them, but they have an idea that the Indians got money, as they made a great display here among the Indians 5° when they arrived the first day or two. 1 paid them cash for skins, $324, and I got $100 of that from them, or more, and they have been gambling and buying clothes here, so they can't have much left. I am sending you an account of the cash paid in checks paid to the Indians. Deducting the 400 skins on board, should you think advisable. Frenchey feels very down-hearted about being in jail, but I feel much better since I got your letter of encouragement. "I thank you very much for sending my wife the $100, and 6o as I told'her to be ready to come out by the latter part of this month, would you please send her $200 to pay their passages, as I want them to come out before the cold^eath- er sets in, and you will oblige me very much. "And don't be alarmed about myself and Frenchey, as we turned a new leaf, especially with this business hanging over us. Please write me, and if there is any letters, forward them. I remain, "Yours respectfully, DANIEL MUNRO." 20 30 (Charles Spring—Re-direct.) Q.—Who is Frenchey? A.—That was the mate at that time. Q.—It is another name for Marketich? nickname for Marketich. Q.—With that, did you get an account with the captain showing what he paid the Indians? A.—With some of the letters he sent an account. IO Q.—Is that the account? A.—(Examining)—That is the account. Q—That is the actual document itself? A.—It is. Q.—And this document shows the total amount due the Indians, does it, $1816? A.—Yes. Account received and marked Exhibit No. 33, G. B., Claim No. 3. Q.—Does this account show the amount the captain had paid the Indians? A.—Yes. Q.—And what is the amount coming to them? A.— $1816. Q.—I believe you got other letters from the captain? A.— Yes, sir. Mr. Peters:—1 want to be allowed to put in a letter, dated the 4th of September, 1886, from Captain Munroe to Mr. Spring.. It is as follows: "Sitka, Sept. 4th, 1886. "Charles Spring, Esq. "Dear Sir: Since writing you yesterday I have been thinking over the draft I gave the lawyer on you should feel inclined to honor it. It is a large sum, but if I lose the case here he has to take it to Oregon for the same money. But should you remit the money you better send it to me and I will pay him part of it, as it won't do for you to give him all of it at present. "I seen some of our Indians last evening. They tell me they had nothing to eat yesterday and very little the day before, and I can't say how they are going to send them home. But I would like you would show the captain of the cutter and the officials up in the Victoria papers. They are pro- Aiding for all the white men, but the Indians can't speak for themselves, but there is no doubt the United States Government pays for them all the same. And as to finding James Ogilvie, there has been no search made for him by the authorities that any person knows of. We searched for him until Ave were locked up. And we think he is dead not far away . from the town, and he was a prisoner at the time. The boat is just about leaving, and I will hand this to Mr. Lewis, of San Francisco, who came to see us, and as he is going to Victoria you will likely see him. I am in good hopes that everything will come-out all right yet. "Yours respectfully, "(Signed) DANIEL MUNROE." Mr. Peters:—I Avish to put in another letter, dated the 11th September, from Captain Munroe to William Spring. It is as follows: 'Sitka, Sept. 11th, 1886. 'Mr. Charles Spring, Victoria. "Dear Sir: As the steam cutter "Corwin" leaves here today for the Sound, and is going to take out Indians with her, I thought best to drop you a line. My trial came off a few days ago, and I got one month's imprisonment and a fine of $200, and Frenchy one month in jail. Our time will be up on the 5th' 40 50 60 888 (Charles Spring—Re-direct.) October, and if my fine is not paid I suppose I will have to remain until it is paid. Please let me know if a claim has been presented to the Government for the ship and the cargo, and, if so, what amount. Otherwise the claim will be made here the 4th of October simply for the vessel and cargo. Be sure and let me know, for there must not be two claims, for if you presented a claim below and I present one here, io the consequence will be confusion, as there must be but one claim. If you have not put. in your claim below the claim here must be made by the 4th Oct. And the belief here is that we will'get'everything back and-be fully compensated. "I don't know where they are going to land our Indians but I will send this letter by one of the boys that was in the "Onward" with us who will forward it to you as soon as possible as I wouhl like you would get it before the "Idaho" re • turns from Portland. "Please send my letters up and write me fully about the 20 claims "I remain your respectfully, "(Signed) DANIEL MUNROE." "I gave the Indians $5 and Frenchy gave them $1 to buy provisions. Now Jim and his mate want to know what they are going to get for working on board, and I think they got enough when they got their victuals for all the help they gave us, I would as soon be without them than have the bother of feeding them in the cabin. It appears Jim told his 3° friend that he would get his meals aboard so he left without taking any provisions with him. All they done for us was to keep watch on the passage to the Behring Sea. So you can settle with Jim as you please, but I told the other man he was to get nothing. I believe they are going to be put ashore at Nanaimo, and should a vessel be going so far as Kvuqnot please have mv clothes brought up and oblige. "(Signed) D. M." Q.—Mr. Spring, you were asked with regard to the relations 40 existing between you and some partners. Now, will you just state that very briefly, Mr. Spring. There was an original partnership carried on between William Spring and somebody else? A.^Yes, sir. y.—What was the name of that old partnership? A.— William Spring & Co. y.—Who were the members of that firm? A.—William Spring, Peter Francis and Theodore Lubbe. y.—What relation was William Spring to yourself? A.— He was my father. y.—And William Soring died, when? A.—In March. 1884. y.—He made a will, I believe? A.—Yes. y.—Under which you had an interest in his estate? A.— Yes. Q.—You need not go into particulars, but generally speaking I believe you had a fifth interest? A.—Yes. Q.—In all his property? A.—Yes. Q-—Part of which you were to get down and part of which 60 you could not get until a certain time? A.—Yes. Q.—William Spring & Co., at the time of your father's death, did they carry on business at these different trading stations on the west coast? A.—They did. Q-—Were they also interested in schooners? A.—Yes. Q-—Did they .also carry on a general business? A.—A trading and sealing business. Q'.—At that time there was very lit lie catching of seals, it was mostly buying? A.—Buying and catching both. 20 30 40 5o €0 Q.—When your father died was there a division made as between the family showing what share you should get? A. —Yes. Ql—Was it made in kind or in cash? I mean by giving you certain property or by giving you cash? A.—It was in properties. Q.—You took over certain properties as part of your share in your father's estate? A.—Yes. Q.—Did the other heirs do the same? A.—No. Q.—Amongst others you got your father's interest in certain properties? Did you get any interest in these trading stations? A.—Yes, 1 took them over. Q.—Where were they? A.—Icluet, Hesquot and Clayoquot. Q.—You took over your father's interest in these trading posts? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And also in certain vessels? A.—Yes. Q.—What vessels? A.—The "Onward" and the "Kate." Q.—Were the trading posts more or less speculative sort of thing? A.—Yes. Q.—And you took them over at a certain valuation? A.— Yes. Q.—And you took the schooners OA'er at a certain valuation? A.—Yes. Q.—Was the old firm of Wm. Spring & Co. then wound up completely? A.—Not completely at that time. Q.—Did it cease to be a going concern? A.—It did. Q.—It was left to be finally Avound up by whom? A.—Mr. Theodore Lubbe. Q.—This was only a partial winding up of it? A.—Yes. Q.—The rest of the business was left in Lubbe's hands to wind up? A.—Yes. Q.—And I presume in the course of time he did wind it up? A.—Yes. Q.—And under that arrangement you took over these properties? A.—Yes. Q.—And at the same time did you go into partnership with Mr. McLean? A.—I did. Q.—Did that partnership include as well the trading stations and your-other business as the ownership of ships? A\ —Yes. Q.—It included all the business? A.—It included all the business. Q.—It was a general partnership? A.—A general partnership. Q.—Did you make any entry in your books showing the taking over of these different properties from Wm. Spring & Co.? A.—I did. Q.—What book is this? A.—The day book. Q.—What day book? A.—C. Spring & Co.'s day book. Q.—On the first page of that book is there an entry of the partnership entered into between you and Mr. Francis and Mr. McLean? A.—There is. Mr. Peters:—I propose to read that entry, it is very short, between those parties. It is as follows: Charles Spring, Peter Francis and Alexander McLean have this day formed a co-partnership under the name and style of Chas. Spring & Co., the firm to do a general trading business at Victoria, B.C., and on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Profits and losses are to be divided and borne by each member of the firm in equal shares. Chas. Spring is to manage the business and to be credited $960.00 per annum for se i-viees. BE io 20 30 40 So 60 890 (Charles Spring—Re-direct.) Peter Francis and Alexr. McLean are to labor for the good and interest of the firm, and are to be credited with $600.00 each per annum for services, said remunerations are to be charged to the expense account of the firm. Said co-partnership shall continue for the term of one year from date, and may be extended as the members of the'firm may agree upon. The capital of the firm shall be $ of this sum Chas. Spring contributes $ , Peter Francis $7,000, and Alexander McLean All capital thus invested with the firm, and all sums of money which may be hereafter advanced to the firm by any member of the firm shall bear interest at rate of 8 per cent per annum. Q.—These were the terms of partnership? A.—Yes. Q.—Were there any other terms of partnership entered into between you? Was it under that that you carried on your business? A.—Yes, up until the death of Peter Francis. Q.—I mean so long as you three were in partnership? A.— Yes. Q.—That was the only arrangement? A.—Yes. Q.—That is dated on the 7th July, 1884? A.—That is right. Q.—At page two of the same book did you make an entry of the transfer of the different properties from the firm of Wm. Spring & Co., to Charles Spring & Co? A.—I did. Q.—That is dated July 7th, 1884? A.—Yes. Q.—That entry is as follows: Bought of Wm. Spring & Co., on account, Merchandise Buildings, etc., at Kyuquot as per Inventory 6th June, 1884, $2,877.65 also the mdse., 48 acres land, houses, etc., at Iciue- let as per inventory 14th June, 1884, $2,728.29. Bought also Schir. "Onward" $2,200.00 also Schr. "Kate"" $2,800 therefore I make the following entries. A.—Yes, that is the en try. Q.—I believe that as a fact, Mr. Francis put in his $7,000? A.—He did. Q.—And of course 3*ou yourself put in that firm what you had taken 0ATer from your father's estate? A.—Yes. Q.—It was fixed up betweem you in some way. I am not going into the particulars as to that, and you carried on your business under that arrangement until when? Will you just show your next change in that business? A.—It is stated in the book. Q.—You carried on your business for some time and then Mr. Francis died? A.—He did. Q.—That was some time in the year 1885? A.—Yes. Q.—And I find at page 115 of your day book under date 28th October, 1885 a memorandum. Was that the memoran dum made between you and Mr. McLean? A.—That is the memorandum. Q.—It is as follows: C. Spring and Alexander McLean bought this day, the late Peter Francis' interest in the business of Spring & Co. (to date from 9th July, 1885,) for the sum of $7,168.94, of this amount we have paid on Oct. 1st, 1885, to T. Lubbe, executor of the will of the late Peter Francis, five hundred dollars, and to-day we settled the balance by giving to the said executor our joint and several promissory notes for $6,-668.94, payable on demand, and bearing 1\ per cent, interest per annum. We also paid $162.97 interest to said exacutor, said interest being computed from July 9th, 1885, to Oct. 28th, 1885. Witness : (Signed) 20 3o SO 60 (Charles Spring—Re-direct. The business of C. Spring & Co. is now to be carried on (and commencing on the ninth day of July last by Charles Spring and Alexander McLean, under the name and style of C. Spring & Co. Profits and losses made by the firm to be divided and borne equally between the said C. Spring and Alexander McLean, all liabilities are to be assumed by said C. Spring and Alexander McLean, and all outstandings to be 10 collected by them. (Signed) C. SPRING. (Signed) A. McLEAN. T. LUBBE. 40 Q.—That was the arrangement made between you and Mr. McLean? A.—That was the arrangement. Q.—Under that arrangement how long did you carry on business with him? A.—Until the close of the season of 1886. Q.—Have you an entry in your book as to where you closed your business with him? A.—I suppose there is, but I do not know where it is. Q.—At all events in the month of December, 1886, yon finally dissolved partnership with him? A.—Yes. Q.—And I believe that arrangement is in writing too, is it not? A.—It is. Q.—Have you got that dissolution of partnership? A.;—I have not got it in my possession now, but I could get it- Q.—And after that dissolution of partnership you became the sole owner of the business? A.—I did. Q.—With the exception of his interest whatever it might be in the claims regarding the schooners "Onward" and "Favourite"? A.—Yes. Q.—Under that he was to get his share wliatever it might be? A.—Yes. Mr. Dickinson:—We have that document. Mr. Peters:—If you produce it it will be more convenient. Mr. Dickinson:—We will let you have it. Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters continued: Q.—That.is the document. I believe? A—Yes. Q.—You had one copy and McLean the other? A.—Yes. Document of dissolution of partnership between Mr. Spring and Mr. McLean received and marked "Exhibit No. 34 (G. B.)," Claim No. 3. Q.—That was the nature of vour partnership with McLean? A.—Yes. Q.—He had no more to do with your business and you had no more to do with his? A.—No. Q.—That ended your transactions finally? A.—Yes. Q.—You were asked, Mr. Spring, about the affidavit that you first put in in this claim, away back in October, 1886. I want you to listen to this affidavit and see whether there is anything in it chat requires explanation at all: I, Charles Spring, of Victoria, British Columbia, owner of the British schooners "Onward" and "Favourite" do solemnly and sincerely declare: 1. That the value of the said vessel "Onward"* at the time of her seizure by the United States steamship "Corwin" was 4,000 dollars, and the cost of the outfit when she left Victoria for the Behring Sea was 1,000 dollars. Q.—That is what you said then? A.—Yes. In io 20 I 892 (Charles Spring—Re-direct. Michael Harkin—Direct.) Q.—And you have always said thej same? A.:—Yes. 2. That she carried a crew of twenty men, and the estimated wages due to the master and men for four months from the 12th day of June to the time of their return to Victoria is 7,500 dollars. Q.—You made that estimate? A.—Yes. 3. That at the time of her capture by the "Corwin" she had 400 seal skins, Avhich were worth $2,800. Q.—You were basing that at $7 a skin? A.—Yes, sir. 4. That the probable catch for the season estimated on the number of skins taken .by other schooners and by the number of skins taken when the said schooner was captured, would be 3,000 skins, the value of which, at $7 a skin, would be $21,000. Q.—And you based that on a valuation of $7 a-skin?. A. —Yes. Q.—You stated to Mr. Warren that some of these canoes Avere only worth $10. The other day I understood you to put them at $25. How do you explain the difference? A.—I stated $25 included everything. Q.—And you still stick to that? A.—Yes. Q.—You got new e;anoes? A.—The majority of them were new. There were some about a year old or so that had 3° been used. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Have you produced all the letters you received from Mr. Munroe? A.—All of them, I think, with the exception of the Ounalaska one. Q.—With reference to Mr. Clark I think you had reports from him right along by letter? A.—Yes. Q.—At the time of your dissolution when it was arranged .0 that Capt. McLean was to be paid $1,100 and odd; in accord- ance with the dissolution argreement did you put a value on the "Favourite?" A.—There must have been. Q.—Do you remember what it was? -V.—I do not remember it off hand. Q.—Is there anything to show? A.—Yes. Q.—Where is it, is it in the book? A.—I think so but I am not able to locate it precisely just now. y.—1 will try and refresh your memory. Was it $3,000? A.—I think it was, but I am not sure. y _And $1,800 for the "Kate," is that right? A.—I think it is about right. y.—That is the valuation put upon them at the time of the dissolution when you bought McLean out? A.—That is the valuation put in at that time- and brought about under certain conditions. SO 60 Michael Harkin was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and was duly sworn. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Mr. Harkin where do you live? A.—30 Queen St., Victoria. Q.—You have lived here for some years have yon not? A. ■—I have been off and on here. 10 20 40 So 60 (Michael Harkin—Direct.) Q.—What is your occupation? A.—Cook. Q.—Were you on the "Onward?" A.—I was on the "Onward in 1886. On the 25th\ May I left Victoria on board the "Favourite." Q.—You started on board the "Favourite" on the 25th May? A.—Yes. Q.—And at Kyoquot you were transhipped to the "Onward?" A.—Yes. Q.—Did you go on the "Onward" to Behring Sea in the capacity of cook? A.—Yes. Q.—Where did you take in your provisions? A.—I had nothing at all to do with taking in the provisions. The "Favourite" had brought some grub for the "Onward." Q-—And at Kyoquot were there provisions put on board the "Onward?" A.—I believe there were. Q.—You had nothing to do with putting them on board? A.—Nothing at all. Q.—As a matter of fact did you hear any instructions given as to how long the vessel was to be provisioned for? A.— As far as I heard from the captain it was that he was not authorized to return until between the 25th September and the 1st October. Q-—You were supposed to get back then? A.—Yes. Q.—Tell me generally what class of provisions you had on board? A.—Beef, pork, canned salmon, canned vegetables, as far as I can remember, but of course, I made no list of them or had no list given to me. Q-—Had you pilot hread? A.—Oh, yes, pilot bread, and flour, and butter and sugar and coffee and molasses and rice. Q-—As cook, you had the management of the provisions AA'hile you were on board? A.—According to the instructions of the captain. Q-—Were 3'ou wanting anything or had you everything on the ship? A.—Well we had everything; we had just what Ave wanted to carry us through. We had just as much as 3'ou need for a sealing shcooner at the present time. Q.—Can you tell me how many barrels of corned beef you has on board? A.—I cannot. Q.—But you had it? A.—Yes. Q.—Had you any bacon? A.—I believe we had bacon. Q.—When were 3'ou seized in Behring Sea? A.—On the 3rd of August. Q.—And when you were seized you were taken into Ounalaska? A.— Yes. Q.—How did you get from Ounalaska to Sitka? A.—I believe there were 42 of us sent down on the schooner "San Diego." y.—Were there any provisions taken from your ship for any purpose that you saw? A.—There was the Navigator Lieutenant of the "Corwin" came on board one day and asked for provisions to take on board the steamer "St. Paul," and I told him the captain was not here just at that time and I thought to myself I did not know anything about it and I had better let him take it. He took flour and severa" things out of the vessel and put it on the "St. Paul." y.—Can you remember what stuff it was he actually did take? A—I cannot exactly remember. Q.—You knew he took some? A.—He did, yes. y. And that was to go on board the "St. Paul?" A.— That is what he told me. y._Do you remember the "St. Paul" sailing? A.—I do. y _She sailed before you left? A.—Yes. Q.—And vou went afterwards in the "San Diego?" A.— Yes, rat io 894 (Michael Harkin—Direct—Cross.) Q.—And you went up to Sitka on the "San Diego?" A.— Yes. Q.—Who went up with you on that vessel? A.—There were 16 Indians from the "Onward" and a deck hand and me and Pienchy, the mate. Q.—Frenchy was the mate? A.—Yes, and there were two Indians belonging to the Str. "Thornton." There were about 40 in all, including the white crew belonging to the "San Diego," at the same time. Q.—How long were you detained at "Sitka?" A.—I was detained there until such time as the "Corwin" left. I was brought down in the revenue cutter "Corwin." We were brought down and landed at Nanaimo. Q.—Who were brought down there? A.—They brought me and the white crew belonging to the "San Diego" and the 18 Indians—16 belonging to the "Onward" and two belonging to the "Thornton." 20 Q-—They brought them down to Nanaimo? A.—Yes, and landed us about 5 o'clock at night at Nanaimo. Q.—And put you on shore there? A.—Put us on shore there and did not give us any pass to go to Victoria or anything else. They landed us there without supper or anything. Q.—From there you got to Victoria? A.—I thought I would go and report at the Custom House and I saw a Custom House officer and he said he could do nothing for me. Q.—How did you get from Nanaimo to Victoria? A.—I 3° got down on the steamer "Amelia." Q.—Who paid your fare? A.—I had to pay it myself. Q.—Did you ever get it back? A.—I do not know whether it was ever stopped out of my wages or not. I went to Capt. McLean's house that night as soon as I got in and got $5 from him. Q.—Did any others come down that way? A.—The captain gave us all our discharge, but I had to leave my bag and bed and what .1 had as security for myself. Q.—When did you get to Victoria- A.—I got to Victoria on the 25th September. Q.—There was a man named Nightingale on board the "Onward?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know where he is? A.—The last account I had from him he went to Marselles, France. Q.—That was how long ago? A.—1888. y —What position had he on the "Onward?" A.—He was supposed to be able seaman. y.—In 1886? A.—Yes. .*>•> Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing: y.—Mr. Harkin, did any of the members of the crew ot the "Onward" go on board the "St. Paul?" A.—I went, sir. y.—You were taken off the "Onward" and taken to the "St. Paul?"" A.—Yes. y.—How were you taken? A.—I was taken in a boat, sir. y.—Did not these provisions go on board the "San Diego?" ,A.—No, sir, it was going on board the steamer "St. Paul," it go Avas supposed to leave the "Onward" to go on board the "St. Paul," but it was neglected by the captain of the revenue cutter as it was supposed to be for the two white men. y.—They took the provisions for these two white men? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—They took very little provisiosn then? A.—Well, it Avas not a large amount. Q.—Just enough for two men for about how long? A,—I should say 12 days. 40 20 (Michael Harkin—Cross—Re-direct.) y.—How many Indians did you have on board? A.—We had 16,1 believe. Q.—And how man3T Indians hunted in each canoe? A.— Two. Q.—Then you had eight canoes? A.—I have kind of an idea that we had one canoe from Kyuquot. Q.—But only eight.hunted? A.—I am not sure about eight or nine. Q.—You had 16 Indians and nine canoes? A.—I think I remember that there were 20 Indians came down, because there were two from the "Thornton." Q.—Twenty altogether? A.—Yes, two from the "Thornton." I feel almost sure that there were nine canoes now. Q.—Did not the Indians bring with them a good deal of dried fruit and such food? A.—Yes, sir, they did. Q.—Did they eat seal meat when they were on board? A. —Yes, sir, they eat a little. Q.—And the provisions you spoke of last, such as tea, sugar, and such things, were provided for the white men? A.—Yes, sir, provided for all the crew. Q.—Did you supply the Indians with it? A.—With tea and sugar. Q.—And with canned vegetables? A.—No, sir, not canned vegetables. Q.—And you supplied the Indians with beef? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you give the Indians canned meats? A.—No, sir. but we gave them salted meats. Q.—You supplied them with salted1 meats? A.—Yes, sir, but not right straight along. Q.—You supplied with rice? A.—Yes, .rice, molasses and sugar, but no butter. Q.—Was any charge made to them for that? A.—No, not to my knowledge. 40 So 6o Re-direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—When you were taken to Ounalaska, had you any meat on board? A.—We had, certainly. Q.—Do you know what became of it? A.—I cannot say. Q.—As a matter of fact you had meat there? A.—Yes. sir. Q.—Beef? A.—Yes. Q.—Anything else? A.—Yes, gome pork and bacon. Q-—And you do not know what became of it? A.—I did not. Q-—Did the captain of the "Corwin," or any of his officers. take an inventory of the goods while you were there? A. Not while I was there. Mr. Peters:—I want to put in evidence in this case the record of the conviction of Daniel Monroe at Sitka. Received and marked "Exhibit No. 35, G. B., Claim No. 3." Mr. Peters:—I also wish to put in the same case the conviction of Marketich. Received and marked "Exhibit 36, G. B., Claim No. 3." I want to put in also copy of the appearance of the "Onward" which has been furnished by my learned friend. I wish also to put in the whole libel against the "Onward," and, especialty. I Avant to call attention to the amended libel at page 28 of the MS. I think it would be well to put a portion of it on the notes, and the rest need not then go on the notes. 896 i Win 10 That C. A. Abbey, an officer of the Revenue Marine Service of United States, in command of the United States revenue cutter "Corwin," and on special duty in the waters of the District of Alaska, heretofore, to-wit, on the 2nd day of August, 1886, within the limits of Alaska territory, and in the waters thereof, and within the civil and judicial District of Alaska, to wit: within the waters of that portion of Behring Sea belonging to the United States and said district, on wa- ers navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burden, seized the schooner "Onward," her tackle, apparel, boats, cargo and furniture, being the property of some person or persons unknown to said attorney; the said property is more particularly described as follows, to-wit. I want to call attention to that particularly. Mr. Dickinson:—You have put need not be printed twice in the inventory before it Mr. Peters:—It will be printed in the Exhibit, and it need 20 not go in the Record. Document received and marked "Exhibit 37, G. B., Claim No. 3." Q.—I wish to call attention also to the following evidence of this Exhibit: John M. Rhodes being duly sworn deposes and says: "Q.—State your name, age and occupation? A.—John M. 0 Rhodes, Lieut. U. S. Revenue Marine, at present on the U. S. 3 Revenue Steamer Corwin, and over the age of 21 years. "Q.—Was any other property seized upon the schooner 'Onward,' except what is included in the general inventory? A.—There was a box containing clothing and nautical instruments. The box was marked Daniel Monroe, Master of the schoner "Onward." "Q.—What was done with this property? A.—I turned it over to the United States marshal at Sitka and it is now in his custody. 40 The Commissioners took recess at one o'clock. At half-past two o'clock the Commissioners resumed their 50 seats- Mr. Peters:—I wish the following to be transferred from the "Carolena" case to this case: The whole of the evidence of the mate Marketich to be found at pages 71 to 80. The evidence of Munsie as to the rate of interest charged. The evidence of John Graham Cox at page 140, introduc- 60 tion and his evidence as to' A'alue and cost of vessels. The evidence of John J. Robertson, page 155, as to the cost per ton of building vessels at Victoria. The whole of the evidence of H. F. Seiwald, to be found at page 157; The whole of the evidence ef William Turpel to be foum' at page 166; The whole of the evidence of Samuel McCulloch Smith, beginning at page 191; 20 3Q (Testimony Transferred From Other Claims. The whole of the evidence of John Sabiston beginnig at page 208; The whole of the evidence of John Clark, beginning at page 212; An extract from the Record of the Governor of Alaska, beginning at page 221; The whole of the evidence of A.R. Milne, beginning at page io 221; The whole of the evidence of J. D. Warren, taken at page '227; also his evidence on page 279 and following, and page 314 and following; The whole of the evidence of C. Spring, taken to page 240; The whole of the evidence of William Bragg, beginning on page 252; also the same witness on page 259; also the same witness on page 332; Also such parts of the evidence of Andrew Laing as were used in the case of the "Carolena" at page 270; The evidence of Victor Jacobson, beginning at page 274; The eA'idence of William O'Leary, beginning at page 290; The evidence of Emil Ramilas, beginning at page 298; The whole of the evidence of Gustave Hansen, beginning at page 301; The various charts referred to. being Exhibits 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 in the "Carolena" case; The whole of the evidence of Alexander Reppen, beginning on page 306; The whole of the evidence of Charles A. Goffin, beginning on page 316; The whole of the evidence of William Douglas Byers, beginning at page 317; The whole of the e'vidence of Charles Auguste Lundberg, beginning at page 324; The whole of the evidence of Robert McKeil, beginning at page 326; The whole of the evidence of Neil Moss, beginning at page 334; 4° The evidence of G. Spring, given at page 344; The whole of the evidence of Percival R. Brown, beginning at page 355. I also wish to use in this case all the expert evidence on the question of the sinking of seals; also all the eA'idence as to the average catch that was given in the "Carolena" case—in fact all the evidence that was given out of its order so far as it is applicable to this case, which I am not able to name specifically on account of its not being printed. 5c ' The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—This is going to put great labour on counsel, and of course, as we go along it will increase in ratio. Perhaps we may be thought to be more than human, but, so far as I am concerned, I believe it will be very hard to keep out of our minds in one case evidence on certain general topics in other cases. I would suggest, on my own behalf, and without having consulted Judge King, that it would be well to prepare a general order with regard to the evidence on certain topics. 6o Mr. Peters:—A great deal of this evidence might be omit- : ted if it were understood that counsel in the written arguments might advert to any evidence they like introduced in the different cases. This would be worse on us than on the other side, because we will have to start the argument and begin with our written argument first. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—The record must be made with great accuracy under the terms of 57 ^P5 898 (Discussion.) the Convention. It occurs to me that counsel might consult together, and possibly arrange some way out of the difficulties which I see will crop up. Mr. Peters:—We can discuss that matter betwe selves. 20 een our- 30 The case of the United States of America in answer to the claim of Great Britain in the matter of the "Onward," Claim No. 3. Mr. Dickinson:—It is perhaps due to the United States to say that the counsel of that government have been very greatly impressed with the good faith and fairness of the claimant in presenting his claim. We shall do little more than our duty in putting in here some matters that may aid the testimony given by this claimant in enabling the Commissioners to arrive at a proper assessment—that is so far as the value-of the ship and property seized is concerned— the personal claim stands upon a different footing so far as this "Onward" claim is concerned. I may add to what I have stated that it is a matter of regret to the counsel of the United States that this claim cannot be more promptly disposed of, and the owners, whoever they are, as the Commissioners find, compensated more promptly than is possible under the circumstances. We desire to transfer the cross-examination of the witnesses named by my learned friend, and which is obviously applicable—to borrow the felicitous phrase of my learned friend—I desire also to transfer the testimony bearing on the probable catch and value, and the general testimony of Mr. Alexander, Captain Miner, Captain Raynor and Captain Alexander McLean, with the cross-examination of the British counsel upon some general subjects as to the valuation; incidental evidence will be given if your Honours hold a session in San Francisco; evidence will also be given there as to 4° the probable catch; we would desire to put in in this case the same part of the Record that was put in in the "Carolena" case showing the dates of the ordinary dismissal—just what was put in in the "Carolena" case from the printed records; that would naturally bear on the question of probable catch. I wish to put in further the certificate of the United States Circuit Court for the District of Massachussetts of the e;itizenship of Alexander McLean. Mr. Peters:—What date? "J Mr. Dickinson:—December, 1882. This can only bear in our view at present on one moiety of this claim; we deem it our duty to put it in, but whatever disposition may be made of the case, we shall certainly recommend that our Government compensate the owners as they may appear by this Record. Mr. Peters:—I wish to tender an objection. To reserve my rights in this matter I wish to tender a fornml objection to that document being put in evidence; as a matter of course it is an important one, and I merely wish to reserve my rights for argument hereafter. Paper received and marked "Exhibit No. 5 (U.S.) Claim No. 3. Mr. Dickinson:—We desire to transfer whatever has been said by Captain Raynor heretofore upon the treatment of the prisoners, but Captain Raynor has not testified in this case specially as to Captain Monroe; or as to valuation, 60 8 99 io 20 (Charles D. Raynor—Direct.) Charles D. Raynor, a witness previously examined, was called on the part of the United States. Direct examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—All that you have said in the case of the "Carolena" with reference to the treatment of the captains and mates at Sitka and Ounalaska applies equally to the Captain of the "Onward"—Daniel Monroe—as well as to the other prisoners? A.—Yes, sir, the same. Q.—Was there any distinction as regards Captain Monroe, in the matter of treatment? A.—No, sir, none whatever. Q.—Do you yourself remember Captain Monroe? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was he confined on board his ship at Ounalaska? A. —No, sir. Q.—Or at Sitka? A.—No, sir. Q.—And with reference to the time when he changed his place of sleeping from the boat to the court house—does the same fact appty to him as with reference to the others? A.— Yes, just the same. Q.—That is before the trial, he voluntarily'began to sleep in the court house? A.—Yes. Q.—He was tried about the same time as the others? A. Yes, sir. Q.—It appears from the record that a fine was imposed upon him. Do you know as a matter of fact whether he paid 30 fhe fine? A.—No, sir; he did not. Q.—He was discharged of the fine? A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Peters:—The record is the test of all this. We asked for the United States records, and they have given them to us; I object to this evidence; it is perfectly impossible that this witness should know whether Captain Monroe paid the fine, or whether he did not pay. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do Q 3'ou allege that he paid the fine? Mr. Peters:—We make no allegation about it. Sir C. H. Tupper:—We simply say that there was a fine. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Then they do not allege that he paid the fine. Mr. Dickinson:—No, they leave it on the record that he was fined, and, of course, the record would not disclose whether the fine was paid or not. 50 60 Mr. Peters:—This witness cannot be put in a position to show the fine was remitted. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you claim that the man was fined $300, and that he paid his fine? Mr. Peters:—I do not, I never did claim it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What is the use of going into it then? Take that admission as placed on record—that is sufficient. Direct examination continued by Mr. Warren: Q.—There was something said this morning about a sum of $80 which Captain Monroe delivered to the- officer of the "Corwin," Avhich it was stated was delivered by the officer of the "Corwin" to the Marshal, Will you tell the Commis- 900 io (Charles D. Raynor—Direct—Cross.) sioners what you know about that? A.—Captain Monroe said that he would give the money to the officer of the "Corwin," and he turned it over to the Marshal, and he told me afterwards that the Marshal had given him back the money. As a matter of fact.I borrowed $10 out of the money myself. Q.—That was at Sitka? A.—Yes. Q.—And then the "San Diego," of which you were captain, took the Indian crew of the "Onward" elown to Sitka? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And the provisions were transferred from the "Onward" to your boat for the purpose of supporting these Indians? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—Will you tell us what provisions were taken on Board your boat, the "San Diego," from the "Onward?" A.—There were 2 boxes of bread, 3 sacks of small sides of ba- 20 30 40 So 60 con, a case of canned tomatoes and a barrel and a half of salted seal meat. Q.—You were on board the "Onward" in the harbour of Ounalaska? A.—Yes, sir, I was. Q.—Had you seen her before you had seen her in Ounalaska? A.—Yes, sir, I had seen her a great many times when she was owned in San Francisco. Q.—Did you have a knowledge of the general condition of the "Onward" at that time? A.—Yes, sir, I think I did. Q.—Did you know at that time about what tonnage she was? A.—I cannot exactly say what her tonnage was, but I would judge it to be from 25 to 30 tons. Q.—You knew the boat in general and the size of her? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—What would you consider the market value of the "Onward" in 1886 at the port of San Francisco? A.—$2,000. Q.—You think she was worth more than the "Carolena"? A.—Yes. Cross-examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Your idea was she was worth $2,000? A.—Yes. Q.—What was her tonnage? A.—Between 25 and 30 tons, I should think. Q.—Do you know her tonnage? A.—Not exactly. Q.—Yes or no, do you know her tonnage? A.—Between 25 and 30 tons, I think. Q.—Do you know her exact tonnage? A.—I said I did not. Q.—What condition was she in in 1886? A.—She was in vevy fair condition. Q.—Did you see her in 1886? A.—T did. Q.—Where? A.—In Ounalaska. Q.—Were her sails new or old? A.—I think the sails were new; that is I suppose they had been bent that spring the most of them. Q.—Do you suppose they were new sails? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was she in good condition otherwise? -A.—I think she was; yes. Q.—Was she or was she not? A.—Yes, she was in good condition. Q.—Were you on board her? A.—I was. Q.—After she was seized? A.—Yes. Q.—After she was hauled up on the shore? A.—No, sir, she was lying at anchor when I saw her. y.—What part of her were you on? A.—I was on her deck and in her cabin. y.__She was only worth $2,000? A.—That is all she would be worth in San Francisco. Q.—How do you know that? A.—That is what I would judge she would be worth in San Francisco, Q. sold, (Charles D. Raynor—Cross. Charles Spring—Direct.) How do you know it? A.—From seeing other vessels Q.—When did you see any sold in 1886 to your knowledge? A.—I don't know that I seen any sold in 1886. Q-—Were there any sold in 1886 to your knowledge? A.— Yes. -What vessels? A.—I can't tell you their names. A.—No. Q- Q.—Can you tell me the name of one vessel? Q.—Sure? A.—Sure. Q.—Can you tell me the tonnage of one that was sold? A. —No, sir, not certain. Q.—Or within'5 or 10 tons? A.—I don't recall them. Q.—What had you to do with the sale, or purchase, of any vessel in 1886 in San Francisco? A.—Nothing at all. Q.—How do you know what the selling price was? A.— From talk and general report. Q.—From whose talk? A.—Well a great many different 20 persons' talk, from men buying vessels and selling them. Q.—Can you name one? A.—I cannot name one now. Q.—So that your knowledge of the value of a vessel in San Francisco, in 1886, depends on the talk of some people, and you cannot tell one, or name one—is that true? A.—Yes, that is true. Q.—Doesn't it strike you that that information is very valuable? I shall leave you at that, captain. Mr. Dickinson:—We are equally satisfied with that, captain. 30 Mr. Peters:—Mr. Dickinson has raised for the first time in this case, the statement that Alexander McLean was an American citizen; I want to prove for what it is worth that Mr. Spring knew nothing about the American citizenship of McLean. As a fact he first ascertained that recently. 40 Charles Spring, a witness on the part of Great Britain, recalled. Mr. Dickinson:—What is this witness going to proA'e? Mr. Peters:—I want to ask him a question as to McLean's American citizenship. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It 50 is simply to remove an impression that may arise. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—As a matter of fact, Mr. Spring, when did you first ascertain, or hear, that Alexander McLean was an American citizen? A.—I had no idea of that until I arrived from the west coast in November. Q.—That is last November? A.—Yes. Q.—In 1886 had you any idea of such a thing? A.—None 60 whatever. Q.—Nor had you any means of knowing anything of the kind? A.—I knew nothing of the kind and never bothered myself making enquiry about it. Q.—This ship at that time was not registered in your name? A.—No. Q-—Was the register ever changed from William Spring & Co., until after the loss, as a matter of fact? A.—If was after the loss. 902 (Charles Spring—Direct—Cross,) Q.—Had that anything to do with the American citizenship? A.—Not to my knowledge, I had no idea of anything of that sort. Q.—So far as you are concerned, did you know where Mr. McLean came from? A.—1 had heard that he came from Gape Breton Island, that is all. Q.—Anel so far as his American citizenship was concerned you knew nothing whatever? A.—Nothing whatever. Q.—Until lately? A.—Lately. Q.—Was there any object in your transferring the vessel from the name of William Spring? A.—No particular reason. It was just a matter done in the course of business. y.—It remained in exactly the same position until after 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—And it was transferred tp your name as appears from the record, and to what other name? A.—Mr. Daniel McLean. Q.—In 1886? A.—Yes. y.—At whose suggestion was the name of Daniel McLean put in? A.—I was under the impression that it was Alexander McLean's until lately. y.—Did you have anything to do with the business of McLean? A.—No, it was put in the hands of other people. y.—The bare fact stands that whether McLean was an American citizen or not you never knew about it until last November? A.—I knew nothing at .all whatever about it. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: y.—Are you not mistaken about that, and had you not re- epjested to have the boat put in the name of Daniel McLean because Daniel .was a British subject and Alexander was not? A.—I have no recollection of it whatever, it may be so, but it has passed my mind; I can only state that I have no recollection of it. Q.—And that in your original formation of partnership the transfer of the ships was not under discussion, and it was not decided then to have the title taken out of the name of Spring & Co., because Alexander McLean was an American subject? A.—I do not remember, I have not the faintest recollection of it. Q.—Might that have occurred? A.—It might have occurred, but I would not say it did. Q.—You never kneAv Daniel McLean in the matter did you? A.—No, it seemed to me that this was only a matter of late occurrence until it came to my mind. Q.—Did you know of the putting of the title in the name of Daniel McLean? A.—I can't say that I did. y.—You signed your own bill of sale? A.—I did so in the presence of other people. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Is this the end of your case, Mr. Peters? Mr. Peters:—This is practically the end, your Honour. Mr. Dickinson:—We have claimed the right to put in evidence in San Francisco, and to reserve our case for that; we will try to get the witnesses here if we can, and, if so, we will examine them, so as to save time, if not we will have to go to San Francisco; or rather it may be necessary to suggest to your Honours to go to San Francisco; we are, however, using our endeavor to get all the testimony we can in here. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:--I suppose you will be prepared to rebut then. Mr. Peters:—I presume so. IO 903 (Thornton Claim.) The hearing of the claim of the "Thornton," Claim No. 2, was then resumed. Sir C. H. Tupper:—My friend Mr. Dickinson has been good enough to dispense with the formal proof of the original policy of insurance at Lloyds which I have in the case of the "Thornton." I have also shown him a statement of the firm of Phman and Edwards, brokers, showing the amount of the' premiums paid, and the returns of premiums in the case of this ship. I tender these policies covering the period from November, 1885, down to after the time of the seizure; the policies are dated 4th November, 1885, 25ih February. IS^O. 1st March, 1886, and the 28th June, 1880. There are three original and one certified copy; they are on the hull, and also on the treasure, or cargo. With these I will tender the statement which I showed to my learned friend, it Avas made* by the brokers, and certified to by them, and I have informed my 20 learned friend that I communicated with London for these documents, and which came out direct in answer to my request, giving what is the total amount on the vessel. She is valued at $6,000. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—What is the .amount insured on the vessel? Sir C. H. Tupper:—The amount of insurance on the vessel altogether is £1,200 and on the cargo £1,000. 30 4° The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I suppe>se you mean by the "cargo" the catch? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Was it an annual policy? Sir C. H. Tupper:—It covered a year round for twelve months. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—What is the rate on the cargo? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Fifty shillings on the one hundred pounds sterling. Documents received and marked "Exhibits 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42, G. B., Claim No. 2." Sir C. H. Tupper:—I would suggest that my learned friend 5° and myself should consult together, and see what part of these exhibits need be printed, and what part need not be printed. I beg to have filed the record in the case of the United States v. Harry Norman. Document received and marked "Exhibit 43, (G. B.), Claim No. 2." 60 Sir C. H. Tupper:—I beg also to have filed the case of the United States v. Hans Guttormsen. Document received and marked "Exhibit 44, (G. B.), Claim n v » No. Mr. Dickinson:—We wish to have recorded our objection any claim for Guttormsen, or any liability. He is de- to ceased. Sir C. H. Tupper:—My friends were good enough to give us a copy of certain papers in reference to the main record 904 (J. D. Warren—Direct.) which I hold in my hand, and all of these I would tender for what the3' are worth. I make special reference to pages 1 to 17, inclusive, and pages 22 to 25, inclusive. Received and marked Exhibit 45 (G. B.) Claim No. 2. 10 30 50 60 as a witness on the part of J. D. Warren was recalled Great Britain. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I desire it to be noted in this case that the witness having already been sworn.and examined in the case of the "Carolena," that such part of his evidence, except that which is obviously inapplicable, be considered as transferred to the record of the "Thornton" case. 20 Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: y.—Captain Warren, you acquired a half interest in a sloop called the "Thornton" in 1864, I believe? A.—Yes,, in 1864. y.—At what rate did you buy into that? A.—At either $1,800, or $1,850, $1,800 I believe. y.—And you acquired a second half later? A.—Later. y.—When was it that the sloop was turned into a schooner? A.—In January, 1877. y.—What work was done upon her for that purpose? A.. —Well, the principal thing was making new masts. y.—And changing the rigging? A.—And making places for the masts and changing the rigging and sails. y.—What sort of material was she built of? A.—In the first place, frame of white oak, natural crooks, her bottom was cedar planking, and the rest of the vessel was Douglas fir they call it. Q.—After you had changed her into a schooner you went out for a spring sealing trip? A.—Yes. Q.—After that what elid you do to the vessel when the trip was over? A.—When I came back I had her hauled up on Cook's ways, and had her taken to pieces, and rebuilt. Q.—Briefly state what was done to the ship at that time? A.—In the first place when I hauled her out I took and put in new deck frames and decks, and got new knees, and when I went to overhaul the planking I found there was a good many of these cedar seams that were gone on the inside, .we had started in taking some of them off, then I consulted with the carpenters and made a contract with them to put in a new frame and taie the planking all off. They were to put in a new frame between each of the frames, and to replant her. Q.—Were there new decks put in? A.—The new decks Avere put in before. Q.—And your new deck beams were put in at the time of the new decks? A.—Yes, I put them in by day work, both the beams and the decks. Q.—That was before the spring trip? A.—No, that was after the spring trip I did this part of it; then I found it would be better to put in new frames—after I had done so much for her I thought it would be better to make her the same as a new vessel. Q.—Make a complete job of it? A.—Yes. Q.—What sort of fastening had she? A.—We fastened her with copper, that is the planking from just about the water line down, the rest was iron. Q.—Was she coppered? A.—Yes, we coppered her then. Q.—What did this work cost you about? A.—It cost about $3,500. Q.—Does that include your own time?A.—No. Q.—Did you give your own time, if so, in what way did you give it to this work? A.—I worked on her, put in the knees, deck frame and laying decks. I worked on her my- io self, but I did not work on her in the contract work, on the planking and on the new frame. I worked on every part, of her, but I left her to the contractors. Q.—Now between the years 1877 ,and 1881, was she overhauled at any time and looked after carefully? A.—I had each of my vessels overhauled every season, I had them thor- - oughly overhauled. Q.—What was done in 1881? A.—In 1881 I put a- steam power in her. Q.—You made her what they call an auxilliary steamer? A.—Yes, auxilliary steamer. Q.—Where was that done? A.—She was hauled up in Cox's yard to get ready for it, that is to get the wood work done and to get the shaft and heads, and sleeves and knees in her. Q.—Did you have a stern post and rudder post put in? A. —The old stern post Avas not large enough for the sleeve and they had a new oak stern post and rudder put in. . Q.—What were they made of?. A.—Oak. Q.—After the preparatory work were the engines then put in? A.—Yes. Q.—.And what other machinery went in? A.—Well,.after the engine and boiler I put in a steam pump and hose. Q.—And an outfit for that? A.—I don't know as J,put that in just at that time, I think it was put in later..--.- Q.—Now about what did this machinery .and steam-fitting cost? A.—As near as I can remember it cost about $3,000. Q.—What business had you used this vessel for when not sealing? A.—For trading. Q.—Trading along the coast? A.—Trading on the coast here. Q.—About what weight would she carry? A.—About 50 tons, 50 long tons of coal. Q.—You carried coal in her of that weight? A.—Yes. Q.—In 1886 how many vessels were managed by you What did your fleet consist of? A. the "Thornton," the "SayAvard," "Grace" and the "Dolphin." Q.—The "Rustler" was lost in 188' 1887. Q.—Who was master of the "Thornton Hans Guttormsen. Q.—He is dead? A.—Yes. Q.—You have corresponded with him when he was master of the ship? A.—Yes. Q.—Will you look at this letter and see if it is in his handwriting? A.—That is a letter I received from him. Q.—Do yon know his handwriting? A.—Yes. Q.—That is his signature? A.—Yes. I Qj— You received that in the course of the post? A.—I received it by post. Letter marked "No. 15 for identification." Q.—Look at the handwriting in this book, and, having looked at all the pages in that book, state in whose handwriting it is? A.—Hans Guttormsen's. —There were the "Anna > six- sealers, Beck," the was lost in 1886? A.— 906 (J. D. Warren—Direct.) Q.-^You have examined this book before with me? A.— Yes. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I should state to the Commissioners that I asked the leading counsel for Her Majesty to state that it appears that the parties were in correspondence with the Department of Marine and Fisheries—of which I was ^head at that time—they sent this book to Ottawa, and, out of the records it has come into my possession as agent for Her Majesty in connection with the Paris proceedings. This is a document we asked from the other side, and which, as a matter of fact, was at the time in my personal possession, though I had not remembered it. Book marked "No. 16 for identification." Q.—This log which you looked at in Guttormsen's writing purports to be the log of the "Thornton?" A.—Yes. Q.—Have you any doubt that this is the log? A.—1 have no doubt of it. Q.—You know of no other book purporting to be the log of that vessel? A.—I do not. Q.—You told us, I think, already, that you have been a long time engaged in the sealing business. You have had experience in that business long anterior to 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—You are one of the pioneers of the seal business in British Columbia? A.—Yes, I am one of them.' Q.—What fleet had you in 1882 engaged in that business of roasting and sealing? A.—I had the "Grace, the "Dolphin," the "Anna Beck," the "Sa3rward" and the "Thornton." Q.—For how many months were they out on a cruise in 1882? A.—For about four months, or a little over it. Q.—In 1883 what fleet had you out sealing and coasting? A.—I think I had only three sealing and coasting that year. Q.—What were these? A.—The "Anna Beck" the "Thornton" and the "Sayward." y.—And in 18S4? A.—I had five out again that year, the 40 "Grace" the "Dolphin," the "Anna Beck," the "Thornton" and the "Sayward." y.—You had the same lot out in 1885? A.—Yes. y.—In these years they confined their sealing operations to the coast? A.—Yes. y.—And you superintended the fitting of these vessels out? A.—I generally superintended the fitting out myself. y.—And what kind of hunters did you have as a rule? A.—Mostly always Indians. y.—In fitting these vessels out, were they ever prevented 5° from carrying on their operations by running short of provis ions .' A.—Never. ? A.—I think and the "Rust- 60 y.—In 1886 you fitted out how many vessels I fitted out six vessels in 1886. The same fleet ler" added. Q.—That is the "Sayward," the "Thornton," and the "Anna Beck," the "Grace," the "Dolphin" and the "Rustler"? A — Yes. Q.—The "Thornton" was seized that year? A.—Yes. Q.—The others returned to port? A.—Yes. Q.—About what time did the vessels that were now seized return to port? A.—In the month of September. Q.—Were any of these vessels short of provisions when they came back? A.—No, not that I am aware of. Q.—Were they or hot, as a matter of fact? Would not you know if they were? A.—They were not. Q.—Where did you supply the "Thornton" in 1886? A.— I suppose she had part of her supplies here when she left in 10 20 3Q 40 50 Document marked "No. 11 (J. D. Warren—Dire the spring, and then I supplied her for the Behrin down on the coast at Clayoquot. Q.—Out of what ship did you supply her at Clayoquot? A. — Out of the "Dolphin." Q.—Look at that signature, and see if that is your signature? A.—Yes, that is my signature. Q-—This document is a statutory declaration, was declared by you at the time, and it bears date the 25th Novembc- 1887, is that right? A.—Yes, that must have been at Ottawa. identification. he parties info to Ottawa? Q.—You were commissioned by several of terested in the vessels seized at that time to A.—Yes. Q.—And to the best of your ability, you prepared a statement of their claims? A.—Yes, at Ottawa. Q — Now at the time this statutory declaration bears date, November, 1887, what did you rely on in making up the claims in connection with the "Thornton?" A.—In making up the claim at Ottawa, I had to make it from a memo of invoices, I had no invoices there. Q.—From your recollection at the time could you come pretty near to the amount of provisions on the "Thornton" in 1886? A.—Yes,. I should be able to come very near it. Q.—Rather better than you can to-day? A.—Yes. Q.—In the meanwhile since 1887, you have had litigation, have you not? A.—Yes. Q.—And in connection with that litigation you had to produce the vouchers and papers connected with these vessels, is that so? A.—Yes, I had to produce all I could find. Q.—Are you able to produce them to-day? A.—No, only some of them Q.—The balance of them went out of your possession in the courts? A.—In the litigation. Q.—The amount you charge for provisions under the head of groceries, there is $533.37, are you satisfied Captain Warren, that there was that amount on board the "Thornton" when she started for Behring Sea. Mr. Dickinson:—Is this to be considered fair testimony? Sir C. H. Tupper:—I was about to state that there Avould be a great deal of difficulty in this case. My learned friend will see that the amount is small. Mr. Dickinson:—Are the vouchers in the court? Sir C. H. Tupper:—The witness has stated that after he made his claim in 1887, he had litigation, and he was compelled to produce these vouchers and papers, and since then he has not been able to obtain them. I will ask the witness the question. Q.—Have you made every effort to procure these documents ? A.—Yes. Q.—And many of the people who supplied you in 1886, are 6o as a matter of fact dead or out of business now? A-—Yes, some of them are out of business, and some of them are dead. Q.—Have you not even searched the records of the court, and had them searched? A.—Yes, I have searched the court two or three times since. Q.—I will ask you in reference to some of the people that you did business with then. You dealt with Strauss & Company? A.—Considerably. **5?=~ i hot io 20 30 908 (J. D. Warren—Direct.) Q.—Are they in business now? A.—No. Q.—.And Sweeney & Bates? A.—Bates is out of business. Q.—Aud Van Volkenburg? A.—He is out of business. Q.—And the British Columbia soap works? A.—They are out of business. Q.—And Neufelder & Ross?' A.—That firm is out of business and Neufelder is out of the country. Q,—And Beat & Company? A.—They are out of business. Q.—And the James Bay Coal Yard, are they in business? A —They broke up through that litigation, and the books could not be found. Q.—And Spratt, is he in business? A.—He is dead. Q.—Did you deal with Capt. Raymur? A.—Yes. Q-—What has become of him? A.—He is dead. Q.—And Wescott? A.—He is not here. Q-—These are some of the people you deal with, and have you endeavored to obtain duplicate vouchers and information of that kind? A.;—Yes, we have. Sir C. H. Tupper:—That is the reason why I frankly ask the Captain to come back to this document which he made at the time when I understand To witness: Q-—You say these matters were comparatively fresh in your recollection then? A.—Yes, they were fresh in ray recollection then. Q.—As a matter of fact, does the $533.00 represent all that you proposed to put in the "Thornton" for provisions that season? A.—No. Q.—What arrangements did you make with regard to out- fitiing the "Thornton" that year? A.—I took extra supplies on board the "Dolphin" to give her in Behring Sea. Q.—You had extra supplies for the "Thornton" on board 40 5o the "Dolphin' 60 -Yes. A, Q.—What was your reason for not putting the full supples on the "Thornton" for the Behring Sea voyage at Clayoquot? A.—They were cramped for room. Q.—She was a small vessel? A.—A small vessel. Q.—-What arrangement did you make so that you could replenish the Thornton with supplies? A.—I arranged for the captain to meet me in the Behring Sea at a certain time and place so as to give him any supplies he wanted. Q.—Where did you have, this understanding? the arrangements with A.—In the Cap- subsequently met the one of the entrances? of the entrances. 'Thorn- Clayoquert is where. I made tain.. Q.—And as a matter of fact.you "Thornton," did you not? A.—Yes. Q.—Amd met him at the mouth of A.—Yes, met her at the mouth of one Q.—And you towed him in? SA.—Yes. Q.—You were on the "Dolphin" and yon' towed the ton" through the pass? A.—Yes. Q.—In these various years, when you were hunting with your fleet did your vessels work comparatively all together, or was every vessel independent of the other? A.—We always expected to assist one another, and whenever we got time we did. Q.—Your vessels were on the same ground? A.—They were on the same coast together. y.—And when you entered Behring Sea, they entered about the same time? A.—Yes, just about. Q.—Had you been in the habit of replenishing the other vessels of your fleet from the Dolphin? A.—Yes: Q.—In 1886, taking the supplies you had on the vessels you have mentioned, how long did you arrange for the cruise, a cruise of the various vessels in your fleet? A.—My inten- • 9°9 (J. D. Warren—Direct.) tion was to have stayed in the Sea until about the end of September. Q.—'And taking the supplies you had, are you able to say that they would have held out for the full season ? A.—Yes, plenty. Q.—Have you any doubt about that whatever? A.—No doubt whatever, io Q-—^n<* y°u so arranged? A.—So arranged. Q.—From year to year, would there be supplies over from the preceding season? A.—Oh, yes, she always had some supplies over. Q-—Had the "Thornton" anything oA'er and above the amount you put into her at Clayoquot? A.—I could not say A\'hether she had or not. Q-—You have no distinct recollection of what she had left there? A.—No. Q.—Did the vessels usually come in here with supplies 20 left? A.—They generally had. supplies left. Q.—What kind of supplies? A.—The kind of supplies that would do for another season, such as canned goods. Q.—And flour and biscuit? A.—The flour and biscuit, we used to try and get clear of. Q.—At the time the "Thornton" was seized how far away was your vessel that day? A.—About 60 miles. Q.—I believe you estimated that out on the chart the other day, taking it from the position given in the admisssion of facts as to the locality of the seizure, and your memorandum 3° of the position of your own boat from a book which you have and which you will produce later on? A.—Yes. Q.—You were 60 miles from the "Thornton" that day? A. —Yes. Q.—Within what waters were you Ashing in the season of 1886? A.—I think they were all pretty much around where we were. Q.—Is that south of the Pribyloff Islands? A.—South of - the Pribyloff Islands. 40 Q.—You kept a diary for 1886 and 1887, I believe? A.— Yes. Q.—And you have it in your hand now, have you not? A. ' - Yes. Q.—In that season of 1886 while on the "Dolphin" how often did you see the "Anna Beck" before the seizure? A.— Twice, I believe, as near as I can remember. Q.—And how often did you see the "Grace" in the Behring Sea? A.—I think I only saw the "Grace" once. Q.—And the "Onward'?" A.—I saw the Onward either 5° once or twice. I think I saw her on two days. Q.—And the "Favourite"? A.—I saw the "Favourite." Q.—And the "Laura"? A.—I saw the "Laura." y.—And the "Carolena?" A.—I saw the "Carolena." y.—You saw them that year in the Behring Sea? A.—Yes. y.—And these vessels were in the habit of meeting on these sealing grounds? A.—Oh, yes, it was a common thing. y.—Are you able to say if it. was the habit then, and is the habit to-day for one vessel to supply another if the other ran 60 short of material needed for the sealing cruise? A.—That is a common thing. Q.—It was a common thing? A.—Yes. Q.—And you towed the "Thornton" into Behring Sea? A. —Yes. Q.—Were you asked for a further stock of provisions for the "Thornton" then? A.—I don't think so. Q.—Now, in these days of seal hunting, and on your vessels, outside of the ordinary provisions, what food was there 910 io 20 3° 40 5o (J. D. Warren—Direct.) as a rule available for the ship's company? Was there a good deal of fish to be had? A.—The vessels were equipped with lines and hooks for that purpose. Q.—And the Indians used to use a good deal of seal meat, and sometimes so did the whites? A.—Yes. y.—What part of the seal? A.—The Indians would eat the body, the blubber of the seal, and the livers were used a good deal. The Indians carried a good deal of dry halibut with them when they started out in those days. Q.—In 1886, which ship of your fleet took the extra supply of provisions that you spoke of? A.—Well, I generally took the vessel I was in myself, and I was on the "Dolphin." Q.—It is not what you generally did, but in 1886 did you arrange to take extra supplies on any vessel or for any vessel? A.—I did for the "Thornton." Q.—On which vessel? A.—On the "Dolphin." Q.—Speaking roughly, can you at this time say about how much would you be able to part with? A.—I had plenty of supplies to give any of them what they required. I could give the "Thornton" any supplies they would require. Q.—And your A'essel came back without being short of provisions? A.—Yes. Q.—How many pounds would there be in a box of pilot bread? A.—A box at that time I think weighed about seventy pounds. They were larger, than they make them now. • Q.—And how many biscuits would that be? A.—Well, from memory I think it is about 600. Q.—I see you charge five rifles in this statement prepared at Ottawa, and marked "No. 17 for identification," can you explain that? A.—Is there not a credit of a rifle somewhere? Q.—You omitted to credit any rifle given to another ship? A.—Yes, I suppe>se that is it. Q.—That is she started with five, and gaA'e one rifle away to another ship, is that so? A.—I believe that is it. Q.—What did these rifles cost? A.—The Marlin, at that time, as near as I can remember, were $45.70. Q.—These were the rifles on the "Thornton"? A.—Yes, there is another rifle which I bought at $22, but I do not remember the name of it. Q.—What did the shot guns cost? A.—About $35 each, I suppose. Q.—You also put in your statement a thermometer? Have you anything to say about that? A.—That thermometer was returned. Q.—There were some things in the inventory that were not in your claim. Now, in regard to an extra set of sails, have you any recollection as to whether the "Thornton" carried an extra suit or not? A.—Was it an extra suit made especially for that ship? Q.—I see in the inventory taken by the United States authorities the following: Three main sails with one set of gear complete, two fore sails with one set of gear complete, and one jib? A.—Apprantly from that there was only one set of jibs, and more mainsails. Q.—Did you yourself see that A.—I saw it on board of her. Q.—What would they cost? think. Q.—Where were they stowed? place in the hold. Q.—If there was not an extra suit, would there be found on her three mainsfils? A,—Oh, there was an extra suit; one extra set of sails put on? A.—The bill was $307, I A.^I don't know; some IO 911 (J. D. Warren—Direct.) suit was repaired up, and the other was a new suit, was an old suit that had been repaired up. Q.—She did not ordinarily carry three mainsails, did she? A.—On the cc-ast, generally carry but one suit. Q.—So that she really had more than an extra suit? A.— Yes. Her proper outfit was one mainsail. She only put up one mainsail. Took the old suit along to save the new; used it in good weather. I didn't know myself there was three on board; there was two I knew. Sir C. H. Tupper:— So far as I am instructed, there were not three mainsails. He has no recollection of that; but there were two, the regular mainsail and the extra mainsai On the entry it is marked three and tAvo, three mainsails and two other sails, and one jib; that is where the mistake is; if they took that extra number and put down the jib below, it would make the statement tally. 20 The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—When 3'ou carry extra sails, what do you generally carry? A.—The reason that the old sails was taken in this case The Commissioner on the part of the United. States:—I mean ordinarily oh this coast, when you carry an extra sail, Avhat do you carry? A.—They don't generally carry extra sails, except a trisail. Q.—What did the shot gun cartridges cost at that time? 30 A.—Well, as near as I can tell, about $35. I don't know whether they all cost alike or not. Q.—Thirty-five what? A.—$35. Q.—Cartridges, I said? A.—The cartridges loaded would cost about 10 cents. Q.—And the rifle cartridges? A.—About four cents; I think $40 a thousand for rifle cartridges. Q.—Powder? A.—Well, that season I' paid about 70 cents, for it, English Diamond grain. Q.—A pound? A.—A pound. Q.—How much were the bullets? How much would a bag-contain? A.—A bag of bullets would be 28 pounds. Q.—And how much would that be? A.—About seven cents a pound. Q.—And buckshot, hoAv much a pound would that cost? A.-—Well, I think the buckshot I got that season cost nine cents, American. Q.—And how much a bag? A.—The Canadian buckshot cost us eight. I am pretty sure it Avas the San Francisco 50 buckshot we had the first year, in 1886. Q.—That was what? A.—Nine. y.—How much would a bag hold? A.—A bag would be 25 pounds. y.—How much would five boxes of wads cost? A.—Well, the wads was different prices, I supose they would cost about $1 a box. Q.—And the primers? A.—Primers, I think, about $1.50 a thousanel. Q.—There is a claim in that schedule marked "No. 17 for 60 identification," for "dry goods," does that refer to the slop chest? A.—That would be the slop chest. y.—About how much was on the "Thornton?" A.—I suppose about $250, 200 or $250. y.—This is $49. Would there be an error in that statement? A.—The men may have got their supplies before they left in that case. y. At any rate, you remember there was a slop chest? A, —Yes, they had a slop chest on board. 40 912 (J. D. Warren—Direct.) Q.—And you say you usually carry $250 worth of. stuff? A. Usually carry about that much. Q-—How many water tanks were there on board? A.— There was three. Q-—Are you positive about, these water tanks? A.—Yes, there was two large ones and a small one. The small one AA'as lashed on deck somewhere. 10 I Q-—This is in addition to the water casks? A.—Yes, in addition to the Avater casks. Q.—How large were these water tanks? A.—Two of them Avould be 400 gallons. Q.—Whereabouts Avere they on the "Thornton?" A.— Stowed in the hold. Q.—I won't take up any more time except to ask what these cost. A.—Well, they cost about. $25 apiece, the large ones; those small ones I paid $40 for two, $20 each. Q.—What did you say these three Avater tanks were? A. 20 —Two of them Avould be large ones and one small. Q.—About what ship chandlery or stuff for the sealing voyage was there on the "Thornton?" A.—Well, I don't just remember what she had on her; she had considerable ' spare gear. y.—"What amount would it usually cost for a vessel of that size? A.—About $200 or $250. Q.—You had the usual amount on her? A.—Yes, I had a good fair supply on her. Q.—There is a small item here for gun implements and 30 tools, she carried those? A.—Yes, she carried them, re-loading tools. y.—$23, or a little over is charged there, are you satisfied those were on board? A.—Yes. y.—That would be the value? A.—That would be the value about. y.—Now, how many sealing boats had she? A.—She had four. y.—Had she any ship's boat? A;—No, I think not. 40 y.—Then when you say boats, you are referring to sealing boats? A.—Yes. Q.—How much did those boats cost? A.—With their sails, they would cost at least, I should think, $150 each. y.—where did you buy them? A.—Bought them at San Francisco. y.—What was the price there? A.—As near as I can remember it is $100 each. y.—When were these bought? A.—That spring. y.—And you get the additional amount by the duty? A. 5° —Duty $25, and freight and other expenses about $15 each. Q.—And then the sails and oars for the four, how much would that be? A.-—I paid $9 apiece for the sails, the oars Avould be pe-rhaps about $2.50 a pair. Q.—And the "Thornton" carried four new sealing boats and outfit? A.—Four new sealing boats. Q.—How many water casks were on the "Thornton"? A. -—Well, I couldn't just say from memory, I suppose she had about eight, eight or ten. 60 Q.—There were eight in the inventory. How much would these be worth? A.—Oh, perhaps $2.50 apiece. Q.—What is salt a ton, can you tell the price per ton? A. —Well, it varies; I suppose about $15 a ton. Q.—When you bought it by the pound? A.—I believe about three-quarters of a cent. Q.—How much in a sack? A.—There would be two hundred weight, English measurement. 3Q (J. D. Warren—Direct.) y.—These sacks, it seems in the inventory, were 400-pound sacks? A.—No, they would be two hundred weight. Q.—You do not recollect what they were? A.—That is what the sacks would be, two hundred weight. Q— What did you pay for coal? A.—About $4 a ton here, in 1886. It was $8 delivered to houses. Q.—You have got a charge for cooking range and utensils. !0 What did you pay for those about? A.—About $50. Q.—What was the lay of the hunters on the "Thornton"? A.—The lay of the hunters that year, I believe, was $1.50 skin. Q.—What did you pay the master? A.—The master was $50 a month and a lay on the skins as well. Q.—What was that? A.—I am not positive whether it was 12J cents or whether it was more. Q.—Hunters, $1.50 for each fur seal; boat pullers, 50 cents for each fur seal; that lay would be all the boat puller would 20 get? A.—Yes. Q.—I mean he would get nothing for wages? A.—I don't know whether they were all on the lay or. not, the boat pul-' lers; some of them may have been on wages. Q.—Taking the list of the crew as appears in that log, do. you know where Neil Morrison is? A.—Neil Morrison is dead. Q.—Do you know where George Cleveland is? A.—No, I don't. Q.—Do you know where George Johnson is? A.—No. Q.—Fred Wilbur? A.—No. Q.—Harry Norman, the mate and engineer? A.—Harry Norman is supposed to be around here somewhere. Q.—Do you know where John Duggan is to be found? A. —No. Q.—John Dallas was examined. John Douglas, do know where he is to be found? A.—No, I don't. Q.—Do you know where William Cleveland is? A.—No. Q.—You do not know where these people are now? A 40 No. Q.—Sam Lawless? A.—I don't know where he is. . Q.—Anthony, an Indian? A.—No. Q.—Touquot, an Indian? A.—No, Q-—Who was the cook? A.—He was a Chinaman. Q.—Do you know AA'here he is? A.—No, he went.to California. I don't know whether he ever came back to the country or not. Q-—Have you endeavored to find the whereabouts of these -0 people? A.—I have tried to find out where they are. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Sir Charles, he has not given the wages of the mate or cook. Sir C. H. Tupper:—(To witness.) What were the wages of the mate? A.—The wages ought to be on the log. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I did not see the captain's or mate's, he has only the hunters' and boat pullers'. Witness:—I couldn't say positivedy without loking up the 60 books. Q.—You cannot tell me at present? A.—I expect that Norman's would be about $40, I suppose. Q.—Do you know what the ordinary men were paid? A.—It would be about $40, as near as I remember. Q.—Would not Norman get more, being engineer and mate? A.—Well, he might possibly, I couldn't say positive- Iv. 58 9i4 10 20 30 40 (J. D. Warren—Direct.) y.—At any rate the pay of the rest was $40 a month? A.—The other mates, I think, were about $40. Q.—What were the crew paid outside of the hunters and boat-pullers? A.—They would get about $30 or $35; it would vary; $35 for ordinary sailors. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How many were hunters and how many were boat-pullers? Sir C. H. Tupper:—14 besides the master and mate. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How many hunters? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Four hunters and six boat-pullers. Two Indians were hunters. Witness:—There should be eight, two to each boat. Q.—Morrison, Avas he a hunter or a boat-puller? A.—He Avas a hunter. One of the Clevelands was a boat-puller. Q,—How many men in a boat? A.—Three men. Q-—And those were called boat-pullers? A.—One would be a steerer and the other a puller. Q.—There were a crew of thirteen men besides the master and mate? A.—Yes, that is right, I believe. Q—When did the "Thornton" finally sail on her Behring Sea trip? What was the date from Clayoquot? A.—I think it was about the 27th of May. ■ Q— You have got that entry in "that book there, have you not? A.—(Examining)—The "Thornton" left on the 27th. Q-—In 1887 you were in Ounalaska, were you not, again? A.—Yes. Q-—That is the year you were seized? A.—Yes, that is the year I was seized. Q-—You saw the "Thornton" at that time. Now, tell the Commissioners Avhat her condition was, how she was lying there, what care was being taken of her? A.—She was just hauled onto the beach and left there. The tide came up and left her dry at low water, at high water it came around her. Q.—Had she been much depreciated since her seizure? A.—There had been nothing done to her at all; she was just lying there open to the weather. Q.—What was the condition of the copper? -And the water at that time was leaking down into the boiler and engine. Q.—In what condition was the copper; was it chafed? A.—The copper was chafed considerably. Q.—And how were the deck seams? A.—The deck seams 50 Avould be' open there laying to the weather that way. Q.—Is that the way the water got into the machinery? A.—That is the Avay the water was leaking through onto the ihaohinerv. condition was the machinery up; in bad condition. and boiler? Go Q.—In what A.—All rusted Q.—This was in July, 1887. Are you able to say a^-thing as to the fact of the climate up there upon a vessel lying idle? A. Well, I suppose it wouldn't be a great deal worse than down here; it would be the same. A damp climate will cause a vessel to rot more than a dry climate will. Q.—And it is exceptionally damp there? A.—Yes., and then heavy frosts in the winter. Q.—What means existed of taking a schooner from Ounalaska in 1886 to Victoria, or an3'where? A.—Well, a person would have to take all his help and material from here, and take it up, as far as I know. They would want to take tim.* ber, so as to get her off the beach, 915 (J. D. Warren—Direct.) Q.—Were there any means there available for taking the vessel away? A.—None that I know of. Q.—What would it have cost about, if you can give a rough idea, to take a crew up, and get a vessel like the "Thornton" off and bring her home? A.—Well, it would have spoiled $1000, I think, to put her in shape, take men up and take her away, io Q.—Now, one question, captain, as to the nature of the supplies. What did you put on the "Thornton," what kind of supplies? A.—Well, it would be canned meats, salt meats, rice, beans, flour, biscuit, tea, coffee, sugar, lard, ham or bacon, something in thai line, a Arariety of things that is pretty hard to mention; I think I have mentioned about all. Q.—And you personally attended to the supping of vessels that I mentioned to-dav did you in those other years? A.—Yes Q—All of them? A.—All of them. 20 Q.—Have they supplies and provisions at Ounalaska? A.—I believe a person can get them there, I understood so. Q.—You never had occasion to get them there? A.—No, I never had any occasion to get any. Q.—You have been in there? A.—I was in there when I was seized. Q.—Do you know of any other places for supplies? A.— Sand Point, but I had no occasion to go in there for any. That is outside, before they go in or after they come out; I never had occasion to go there for any, 3 Q.—You have gone in for coal and water, have you not. at different places? A.—I have gone in there for water. y.—Where did you go in for water? A.—I think I had one vessel go into Sand Point. Q.—I mean in the sea? A.—I got water one time a little further to the westward than Ounalaska. y.—What tonnage was the "Dolphin?" A —She was re gistered 60. y.—What could she carry, a large amount? A.—130 tons. 40 Q.—Dead weight? A.—Dead weight. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Net register? Witness:—Net register was 60 and a fraction. Q.—What have you carried? A.—Coal. Q.—How much? A.—130 tons. Q.—So she had ample accoimne)dation then for her own supplies and supplies besides? A.—Yes. 5° Q.—Did you frequently supply your other vessels out of her? A.—Well, sometimes, very seldom they wanted anything; I frequently gave them some articles they might want. Q.—She and the "Grace" were about the same size; they were the largest of your fleet? A.—The "Grace" was larger than her. Q.—Was the "Grace" much larger? A.—She carried 20 tons more, (jo Q-—But the "Dolphin" was your own ship; I mean the one you sailed in? A.—She was my fancy one. By the Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Captain, how long would a suit of sails last in this business? A.—About three years. Q.—What would it cost to refit this "Thornton?" I do not mean the outfit; but you say you thoroughly refit every autumn; how much did it cost each year to refit, take the 916 (J. D. Warren—Direct.) "Thornton" for instance? A.—Well, she would cost, oh, I should say— Q.—I am speaking simply of the vessel herself, to make good her wear and tear? A.—I think she would take fully $1,000 a year, one year with another; one year she might not take so much and another a good deal more. Q.—Do you mean the wear and tear would be as much as io that? A.—The running gear is a good deal and the sail is a good deal, and then they have to be thoroughly overhauled and repaired, and if they require any caulking, to get it, and once in a few years have to put in new chaffing, and overhaul them. Q.—Do you mean a vessel of the size of the "Thornton" would take that? A.—I think she would take fully that. Q.—That would represent the wear and tear, would it? A.—Yes, I think she would take about that; the sealing business is a pretty hard business on these little vessels. 20 y,—it is not so hard as the cod fishing business on the Banks., is it? A.—Well, I don't know. It is a pretty hard business. The best part of it is the Behring Sea by all means. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper continued: y.—As a matter of fact, Avere the hunters and crew paid after coming to San Francisco and Victoria? A.—They were all paid. 30 y.—And the passage money from Victoria to San Francisco? A.—Yes, the passage money was paid, I don't know whether that included the whole. y._Well, there is $107.16 charged? A.—That was paid to the steamer company for passage. y.—Passage money and expenses of Thompson and the mate, Norman, are charged here? A.—There is some mistake in that; I have seen that. y.—You say that is only $100 that was paid? A.—It 40 should be, I think, $100 for the two; the ordinary passage was $50, and it must have been intended to be $100 for the two instead of $100 apiece. y.—At any rate, the right sum is $100? A.—Yes, I should say so. Mr. Warren:—When you asked him if the wages were paid up to what time did you mean? Sir C. H. Tupper:—I said up to the time of the seizure. 5° Was that right? were they paid up to the time of the seizure? A.—In 18S6 I am not sure whether we paid them until they arrived home or not. O.—You are sure they were paid? A.—They were settled with and paid up. Q.—You have charged $1370, would that be the amount? A.—Yes. Q.—Were they given a lay on the catch? A.—They had to be paid for every skin brought on board, no matter wheth- 60 er seized or not. The Commissioner on the pari of the United States:— What is the practice under the English flag, Mr. Peters where a vessel is lost or captured: is it to pa3' the crew to the time of the capture and expenses home, or to pay them up to the time thev reach home? Mr, peters:—It is a question I cannot answer off hand, 9-7 (J. D. Warren—Direct—Cross.) The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—With us they pay the wages up to the time of the loss and pay expenses home. Mr. Peters:—I would not like to answer that off hand. io The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—My learned associate thinks it is the same here. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper continued: 20 Q.—You charge $500 expenses at Sitka in connection with the seizure of the "Thornton,", what does that mean? A.— Legal expenses. Q.—Yes? Legal expenses at Sitka in connection with the seizure? A.—Well, the captain employed a lawyer up there or a firm, and it appears' -that they had arranged to appeal these cases and he drew on me for $500. Q.—That is the reason you charged that? As a matter of fact you have not paid it? A.—I didn't pay it. He has been paid some money that we thought was right; I told him I had put the claim in, and if it was allowed he would get it. Q.—Who was that? A.—Clark, I forget the name. Q.—Now, there is a charge of $750 for counsel and other legal fees and expenses in and about claims arising from the seizure, what does that refer to? A.—That refers to the engagement of Belyea. Q.—That is in connection with this "Thornton?" A.— With the "Thornton." Q.—Travelling, hotel and other necessary expenses in connection with the said seizure and claims, $1,000, is that a bulk sum that you put in? Q.—Just a bulk sum. Q.—Where did you go in connection with this; what does that travel cover, from here to where? A.—I have been a couple of times east. Q.—Do A'ou mean Ottawa? A.—To Ottawa. Q.—Have you been to Sitka? A.—I have been to Sitka; 4° over the Sound two or three times. Q.—And Washington? A.—And to Washington, yes. Q—In 1890, I believe? A.—I am not sure of the date. Q.—Washington, the capital of the United States? A.— I know I was there, but I don't know the date. 30 Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Captain, you charged $1000 for expenses travelling, etc., in the "Thornton" case? A.—I have charged it there. 5° Q.—Now, when did you begin to travel in the "Thorntem" case? 1887? A.—In the fall of 1887. Q.—At that time had you also a claim as to the "Dolphin?" A.—Yes. Q.—A_nd some five other claims? Your other ships? A.— Yes. Q.—Did you go on business for the other fiA'e ships? A.— Well, I went on the business of all of them, I suppose. Q.—And you charge for travelling expenses $100 in each 6o case? A.—I don't just remember what it is in the other cases. Q.—But yob went on the business of all the seizures of 1887 together with that of the "Thornton" in 1886? A.— Yes. Q.—You charged the $1000 in the "Thornton" case. You don't mean to say, do you, Captain Warren, that you expended $1000 in travel for the "Thornton?" A.—No, I haven't stated that; I spent $1,000 and considerable time. IjHbjj— 10 30 918 (J. D. Warren—Cross.) Q.—You undertook all your claims together when you went to Ottawa? A.—When I went to Ottawa, yes. Q.—Now, did the owners of the other ships contribute toward your expenses? A.—They did in one trip contribute toward it. Q.—And how much did they contribute? A.—I don't remember now what they did pay me; I think it was $100 or something. Q.—$150 each? A.—I don't think it was as much as that. Q.—Did you charge them for all your expenses? A.—I charged them a proportion for one trip to Ottawa. Q.—Did you charge yourself your proportion? A.—Yes. Q.—Are you sure about that? Your proportion in all the ships you were interested in? A.—I charged some of them. Q.—Can you give us any clearer idea than that? A.—I don't know; let me see; I can't just remember how that claim was made up ,but I know they paid me a proportion. 20 Q.—Now, when was the steam auxiliary put in? A.—In 1881. Q.—Then I think you owned or controlled the "Dolphin," the "Anna Beck," the "Rustler," the "Sayward," and the "Grace," in addition to the "Thornton?" A.—Yes. Q.—In 1881? A.—Oh, no; I didn't have them all then. Q.—Just what did you have of them in 1881? You had them in 1882, certainly, according to your statement; how many did you have in 1881? A.—In '81 I had the "Anna Beck" and "Thornton." • Q.—The "Dolphin?" A.—No. . Q.—The 'Sayward?" A.—No; that must have been all in '81, just them two. Q.—Now, what other business did you have in 1881? A.— Trading on the coast, on the west coast. Q.—Did you have headquarters here and an office? A.— Yes. Q.—Where was your place of business? A.—I don't know Avhether I had any office in 1881 or not. Q — Then you owned the "Thornton" and the "Anna Beck" and the trading stations at Vancouver? A.—I don't think I kept an office at that time except in my own house. Q— Did you have any one employed by you? A.—No. Q.—Did you do your own office work? A.—Yes. Q.—Do you keep books? A.—Yes. Q.—You always kept books from that time on in this business ? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you keep them yourself? A.—Not all the time. Q.—Some of the time did you employ a bookkeeper? A.— 50 Yes. Q.—After that did you have an office, after 1881? A.— Yes, I started an office; I don't know just what time I did have an office; I had an office in 1884 or 1885, I think, any way. Q.—Now where is the book you kept of your trading station and your shipping in 1881? A.—Here in town. Q.—You have got it yet? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—That will diseJose your payments for this auxiliary 60 steam? A.—That would show a good deal of it, and a good deal of it is mixed. Q.—And if you have lost your vouchers you have not lost your books? A.—No, sir. Q.—And you kept an account, did you not, in your books of the supplies Avith which the trading stations were stocked? A.—Yes, I expect so; tried to. Q.—That shows by your books, does it not? A.—Yes. 40 IO 20 30 40 50 Go 919 (J. D. Warren—Cross. Q—And also it shows the cost that $3,500, without your own labor, upon the It shows Avhat I can find of it. Q-—P° y°u keep regular books of account? A.—Well, it was this way: A good deal of the accounts in the books were running accounts with people, and it is pretty hard at this late day to pick it out. y.—Have you tried? A.—I have been trying to, and it is pretty hard to do it. Q-—You did not pay out any money, did you, captain, without entering it in your books? A.—I don't suppose I would. Q-—You had books of entry that you kept daily, did you not? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you keep a ledger? A.—Yes. Q.—You kept a ledger and day book, did you not? A.—Yes, I kept them as Avell as I could. Q-—Did you keep a cash book? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you keep a bank account? A.—Yes, I think I kept a bank account. Q-—Xoav, do 3'our books also show what you paid for the "Thornton" when you bought her? A.—In the first place? Q.—Yes. A.—No, I don't think I kept any books then. Q.—Did you take a bill of sale of her? A.—Yes. Q.—Have you got the bill of sale? A.—NorI can't find it. Q.—She was in pretty bad shape when you bought her, was she not, captain? An old '61 boat, pretty rotten and full of holes? A.—Bought in '64. Q.—Was she in pretty bad shape? A.—No, she pretty fair shape. Q.—She had been knocked about a good deal even then hadn't she? A.—She had been freighting a good deal. Q.—What year was it you put the $3,500 on her? A. The year '77; finished up in '78, commenced in '77. Q.—Was she pretty rotten then? A.—No, she was pretty sound. Q.—I don't mean when you put the auxiliary steam in her; I am speaking of when you put the $3,500 out on her? A Yes. Q.—Did 3'ou enlarge her? A.—No. Q.—Yet she was pretty sound? A.—She was sound; a few of her knees were gone down under the Q.—She had been sealing before?. A.—She had sealing, yes. Q.—She had been chopped into some; some holes in her? A.—I guess that didn't hurt her much. Q.—Had she been wrecked? A.—She . got ashore one time. y—When was that? A.—I think it was in 1883. y.—But prior to the time that you put the $3,500 out on her—you say you put that in her about '77? A.—No; I think this is afterwards; I think it was in '83. y.—Had she not been Avrecked before you put the $3,500 into her, Captain Warren? A.—No. y.—Had not been ashore? A.—No. y.—How many times has the "Thornton" been wrecked? A.—Well, I don't know as she ever was wrecked. She got ashore some time, and it cost me considerable to get her off. y,—'Where was that? A.—Down at the mouth of Barclay Sound. y.—Did that hurt her any? A.—I don't know as it did. y.—How long was she on? A.—Well, I can hardly say; perhaps a month. We had to send people down from here to get her off. y.—On the rocks? A.—No, sand flat V0sf~ 920 10 20 30 (J. D. Warren—Cross.) y.—Now, Captain Warren, did she not go ashore and go on the rocks prior to 1877 when you put the $3500 on her? A.—Not that I know of. y.—Was it before or after you put in the steam auxiliary that she was carrying coal? A.—Used to carry coal before and after. y.—How long did she carry coal prior to the time of your putting on the steam auxiliary? A.—I don't know just when I did commence to carry coal. y.—Cannot you fix the tune? A.—Probably '66, it may be later. I freighted lumber for some time when I first bought her. I don't just remember when I did go into carrying coal. y.—You have told us of the James Bay Coal Company as having gone out of business so that you cannot get duplicate vouchers from them. That was your own money, was it not? A.—Yes. y.—Your business? A.—Well, it belonged to some of the family; it didn't belong to me. y.—Had you no interest in it? A.—No. Q.—Who had? A.—It belonged to my wife. Q.—That is the concern that is gone out of business, is it? A.—They haven't gone out of business altogether, but so far as that yard is concerned, it went out of business. I can't find the day book, or the blotter, where they entered the daily work on. y.—Did the "Thornton" do any freighting for the James Bay Company? A.—Yes, sometimes. Q.—What years? A.—'85 is when they started; I suppose they did freighting most any year, after they started. y.—Did the "Thornton" do freighting? A.—She did some, yes. y.—She did not go on the coast sealing in 1885, did she? A.—Oh, yes, she went sealing. y.—And when did she—if the James Bay Coal Company started in 1885 when did she do freighting for the James Bay 40 Coal Company? A.—In the winter and fall of 1885. y.—After she came back from sealing? A.—After she came back from sealing, they started the yard in the fall of '85, and I think quite likely she carried some coal. y.—And just the date again when the auxiliary steam was put in as distinguished from1 the $3500 expenditure? A.— That was in '81. y.—And then when' she went ashore she had the steam on? A.—She had the steam, as near as I can remember; I am pretty sure that was in '83 that she drove ashore down ■* there. y.—Did the crew leave her when she went ashore? A.— Yes. Q.—And how did you get her off? A.—Got some men here to go down and put some ways under her and launch her off. Q.—Now do you not think she was on that beach three months instead of a month as stated by you? A.—I don't know just how long she was on that beach. Q.—Was she not there two months and a half? A.—She 60 may have been. Q.—And exposed somewhat to the sea? A.—No, I don't think she was exposed much. Q.—What time of the year was it, Captain Warren? A.— Well, il was the summer time she was on there, it was the last of the sealing; we got her off there before the bad weather came on. Q.—Can you tell us from this map of the southwestern part of British Columbia, Captain Warren, where she went (J. D. Warren—Cross.)' on about on? A.—(Examining)—I think she wen (indicating). Q.—Somewhere near Clayoquot Sound, was it not? A.— (indicating) I suppose this is Templar Island; it was inside of that, on this line over here (indicating Q.—What month in the summer was this? A.—I think as near as I can tell it must have-been about June; it was io the latter part of the sealing. Q.—She was engaged in sealing at the time? A.—She was engaged in sealing. Q.—Coast sealing? A.—Yes, then I was waiting until the finest weather of the summer to get her off. Q.—Did the crew come from Victoria? A.—I think so. Q.—And how were they brought down? A.—I suppose likely brought on the other vessel; I don't remember the particulars, of it. Q.—You do not remember what vessel brought them 20 down? A.—No. Q.—Can you not fix the date by your settlement with the crew? A.—I think it is doubtful. Q.—Your books would show that, would they not? A.— Kind of doubtful if they would show a settlement of that kind. Q-—Now, in regard to your vouchers, the statement that you made at Ottawa to which Sir Charles called your attention, was made, you say, when the vouchers were at hand? 30 A.—It was from the statement taken of vouchers. Q.—That you had? A.—Yes, the statement was taken from the books and memorandum of the different bills from different dealers. Q.—Taken from your books? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—And none of those books are lost? A.—Them books are here. Q.—Now your memory, you think, was better at that time —at the time you made the statement at Ottawa—than now? A.—The facts were all fresh in my mind. Q,—Yet yon have had those vouchers and gone over those same items in litigation right here in Victoria? A.—Of 1886? ' Q.—Yes? A.—No, I never went over the '86 vouchers— the other vouchers—the '86 vouchers, I don't know what became of them. Q.—What other vouchers; your direct examination was directed to the "Thornton" case in 1886? A.—Well, I got my mind on my general business I have been questioned about different years. Q.—Was not the "Thornton," and your dealings with the "Thornton," involved in those litigations? A.—The outfit of the "Thornton" in that litigation was not brought into court. Q.—But the "Thornton" was involved in that litigation? A.—The "Thornton" herself. Q.—Then you don't mean to be understood that in the litigation all your.evidence disappeared or was lost regarding the "Thornton" outfit? A.—About those A'ouchers of the "Thornton," I elon't remember what became of them. Q.—They did not disappear in the litigation? A.—I don't hardly think that the "Thornton's vouchers went into court; that is, the outfit. Q.—And when was that litigation? A.—It commenced in 1889 and continued right on to now pretty nearly. Q.—So whateA'er items that litigation did inA'olve they were called to your attention since 1889 through that litigation; whatever accounts they did involve with reference to sealing 40 60 IO 20 30 922 (J. D. Warren—Cross. John Andersen—Direct.) ships—sealing schooners were markedly called to your mind, as they were material in that litigation? A.—Yes, some of the sealing business Avould be. Q.—So that, having them called to your attention later than 1887, your memory Avould be better, would it not, than it is now as to what you fitted out in 1886, for? A.—No, Avhen I Avas getting supplies for the vessel; for instance, ship chandlery, when I got the bill of goods I marked what was to be charged to one account and what to another, for-the bookkeeper, and the vouchers then were pretty fresh in my memory. Even if I had the vouchers to-day it would be very hard for me to separate them as well as I could have done then. Q.—But your bookkeeper carried out your instructions and entered them? A.—I expect she did. Q.—Have you not looked to ascertain as to the amounts involved in your claim against the United States? A.—As a general thing I looked through the accounts. Q.—You have looked at the books to ascertain and refresh your memory, have you not? A.—In 1886 I didn't have much to do with the books. Q.—But since 1886 you have been presenting claims to your own Government? A.—I have looked at the books considerable. Q.—And in connection with making up your claims, have you not? A.—Yes. At 5 p.m. the Commissioners rose. Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between 40 Great Britain and the United States of America Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December, 29, 1896. At 10:30 a.m. the Commissioners took their seats. John Andersen was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn. (Called out of order, by consent, in the "W. P. Sayward" case, Claim No. 6.) 50 Direct examination by Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper: Q.—You hold a masters' Coast Certificate, do you not? A.—Yes. Q.—And own a tug boat? A.—Yes, a small tug boat. Q.—A little tug boat called the "Constance?" - A.—Yes. Q.—She is now in port? A.—Yes. Q.—And you have to leave Victoria? A.—I have to leave to-day or tomorrow. Q.—You are coasting? A.—Yes, sir. 60 Q.—What were you on the "Sayward" in 1887? A.—I was a deck hand. Q.—About what time did you join that ship? A.—I joined in the spring; I think about May. Q.—Where did you join her? A.—Down at Dodge's Gove, Barclay Sound. Q.—Do you remember who was the master? A.—Yes, sir, Captain Ferry. Q.—And the mate? A.—Andrew Laing. 20 So 923 (John Andersen—Direct.) Q.—Do you remember what crew you had? A.—I do not remember exactly, but I think about 20, all told. Q.—Do you remember any of the names? A.—Only the captain and the mate, and a hunter named Davie. Q.—Was he a white man? A.—Yes. Q.—■Where is he now? A.—He went away two weeks ago on some schooner. io Q.—He went out sealing? A.—Out sealing. Q.—Do you remember any of the other hunters? A.—No, I do not remember. Q.—Did you have a white crew or an Indian crew? A.— An Indian crew. Q.—Where did you get the Indians? A.—We got them in Dodge's Cove. Q.—By the way, do you happen to know what place the man Davie has gone to? A.—It must have been over to the Japan coast. Q.—You had been sealing one year before, had you not? A.—I was in the "Favourite" in 1886. Q.—What were you doing in the "Favourite?" A.—I was a deckhand. Q.—Did you hunt any other year? A.—No, sir. Q.—You went into Behring Sea in 1887 for the first and only time? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember what time you got into the Sea? A.—No, I did not keep any log. 30 Q.—Have you any idea as to the month you entered the Sea? A.—About July, I think; we got seized in the middle of July. Q.—What kind of provisions had you on board the "Sayward?" A.—We had all kinds of salt beef, canned meat, canned food. Q.—Pilot bread? A.—Yes. Q.—What else? A.—I know we had some codfish. Q.—Had you plenty of provisions? A.—Plenty. Q.—When you joined that vessel at Dodge's Cove to go in- 4° to Behring Sea when did you expect to return, for what length of trip did you expect to go? A.—October or November. Q.—You. expected to be back here in October or November? A.—Yes, sir. Q,—What were the Indians fed on? A.—They were fed on rice and biscuits, sugar and tea. Q.—Did they catch their own fish? A.—They bring their own fish. Q.—They brought dried fish with them? A.—Yes. Q.—In adition to what you have mentioned? A.—Yes. Q.—That is to say, they got their other supplies on board, and they brought and ate their dried fish? A.—Yes. Q.—Had they seal meat, too? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—Do you remember the seizure of the "Sayward" in 1887? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You were on board? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, after the seizure, where was the vessel taken to? A.—She was taken to Ounalaska. 60 Q.—What way did she go to Ounalaska? A.—They towed us in. Q.—The cutter towed you into Ounalaska? A.—Yes. Q-—And at Ounalaska, what was done with the schooner? A.—They took us in there. Q.—Who did that? A.—The officers from the cutter. Q.—Where was your ship put? A.—We were just lying at anchor. 924 (John Andersen—Direct.) Q.—What was done with your boats? A.—The boats were left on board. Q.—Who remained on board when you were at anchor there? A.—The crew were on board. Q-—Was there any one placed on the ship from the cutter? A.—I do not remember that. Q.—Do you remember a watchman being put on board at io all? A.—I do not remember that there was a watchman on board. Q-—At any time after the seizure? A.—There was a man came, but that was after we started away from Ounalaska. Q-—How long were you at Ounalaska? A.—I have forgotten now. Q.—After being there for a time, you say that the man Avent with you somewhere? A.—Yes, to Sitka. Q-—Who was the man? A.—He was the quartermaster, I believe, from the cutter. 20 Q-—How did you go to Sitka with this quartermaster? A. —We sailed there. Q-—And all the rest of the crew on board? A,—Yes, sir. Q.—Indians too? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did they remain on board when you were at Ounalaska and start from there to Sitka with this quartermaster in charge? A.—Yes. Q.—When you got to Sitka where did you go? A.—I stayed on board. 30 Q-—Bid your vessel come to anchor or go to the wharf? A.—She came io anchor. Q.—What occurred there? A.—Nothing. We stayed on board for a little while there. Q.—Did this quartermaster leave you? A.—I do not remember if he went on shore or if another man came on board. I cannot tell you. Q.—Was some one on board from the cutter? A.—Yes. Q.—As far as you recollect, whether he remained or some one else came in his stead, there was some one else there in 4° charge outside of your crew? A.—Yes. Q.—How long did you remain at Sitka? A.—I think about a. week. Q.—And during that week you remained on board? A.— Yes. Q.—Were there any rules in regard as to when you could go on shore, or could you go ashore when you liked, or come back? A.—We could go when we liked. Q.—That is your recollection? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Were you ashore, as a matter of fact? A.—We used to go ashore in the day time. Q.—What time did you go back? A.—In the evening. Q.—How did you go ashore? A.—In the boats and canoes. Q.—Were strangers going, could they go on the ship? A. —I never minded that there were any stranger's going on board. Q.—Where did you go after you remained there for a week? A.—I worked my passage on a little schooner to Juneau. 60 Q.—Who went with you? A.—Four or five more. Q.—From the "Sayward?" A.—I do not think there was any one from the "Sayward." y.—You were the only one from the "Sayward" that you remember? A.—Yes. y.—Before vou went to Juneau did you take any food from 1he ship? A.—Just a little. y.—How many boats Avith you? A.—Four. y.—Who took food? A.—I took it from the "Sayward." 50 10 20 (John Andersen—Direct—Cross.) Q.—What was it? A.—A little canned beef and biscuits, and one thing and another. Q.—Who gave it to you on the "Sayward?" A.—I do not remember who gave it to us. Q.—Did you just take it? A.—I do not remember whether I took it or ivhether some one else gave it to me. Q-—What ship did you go to Juneau on? A.—A little schooner. Q-—Who was providing the schooner? I forget the man's name. Q.—Did the authorities provide it? A.—Oh, no; it was a little trading schooner. Q.—That you got passag Q.—Did you pay for it yourself? passage, that is all. Q-—You worked your passage from Sitka to Juneau? A. —Yes. Q.—How far is that? A.—I don't know how many miles, but it takes about a week's time. Q.—What did 3rou do in Juneau? A.—I worked in the stamp mill at Douglas Island for a little while. Q.—Did you work there to get money to come home? A.— Yes. Q.—When did you go home? A.—In October. Q.—Do you remember how many boats you had on the "Sayward?" A.—I think there were eight or nine canoes; something like that, but I don't remember. Q.—You had just outfit for the Indians? A.—That is all. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: 30 Q.—Do you mean to say that you took provisions off the "Sayward" to feed yourself and the four men who went to Juneau, or did 3tou just take what did for yourself? A.—I only took for myself. The rest took something from the other schooners. Q.—And you said you took very little? A.—Just enough 4° to take us to Juneau, that is all. Q.—When you were asked whether you knew you had sufficient provisions on board or not, do you mean that up to the time a7ou were seized you had enough to eat? A.— We had plenty of grub and plenty of provisions on the "Say- AA'ard." Q.—You would not pretend to say the amount of provisions that was in the hold of the ship? A.—I would not know how much provisions there was, but I know there was cq plenty on boarel. y.—Quite enough, Yes, sir. Q.—You say that you expected to get back some time in October or November? A.—Something like that. Q.—What do you mean by saying something like that? A.—Well, about October they used to come back from the Behring Sea in those years. I had never been up there myself, but I believe others did. Q.—Will you tell us a boat that came back in October, 60 1886? A.—No, I cannot tell. Q.—Will you tell me a boat that came back in October, 1887? A.—I don't know. Q.—What makes aou say that they used to come back in October and November? A.—I know that if you stayed long on the coast you might be some time, a week or two, before you got into the* Sea. Q.—I am not talking about when you got into the Behring Sea, Can you tell me any boat that arrived here from the so far as vou Avere concerned 926 (John Andersen—Cross. J. D. Warren—Cross.) Behring Sea in the month of November? A.—I don't know as T could. ■ Q.—How came it that you expected to stay in the Sea until such time as you only would be able to reach Victoria in November, when the manager of the fleet expected to get back some time in September? A.—That is what we sailors calculated; we intended to be back about October. 10 Q*—You do not mean to say that you heard that expression from the manager of the fleet? A.—Oh, no; that is what we imagined, that is all. Q.—You do not base that on any expression that you heard the captain or Mr. Warren use? A.—No. Q.—You said that you were deck hand on the "Favourite" in 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—Where were you that year? A.—Down here on the coast, that is all. Q.—You were not in Behring Sea? A.—No. 20 Q-—You were not on the "FaArourite" in Behring Sea in 1886? A.—No, not in the Behring Sea. lit Ii 1 JM If m 30 40 SO James D. Warren, a witness called on the part of Great Britain in the erase of the "Thornton," recalled for cross-examination. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson continued: Q.—Can you now fix the year that the "Thornton" was ashore? A.—She went on shore in June, 1883, and was got off in August, 1883. Q.—She was about two and one-half months there? A.— Yes, as near as I can place it. Q.—Now, in the year 1883, after she was got off, did you have anything to do with reference to the "Thornton" with Joseph Boscowitz, Victoria? A.—In 1883? Q.—Yes, sir. A.—It is most likely I had. Q.—In the fall of that year you gave Joseph Boscowitz a mortgage for $4,000? A.—Yes, sir; it was about that; I think so; about that time, I think. Q.—That was after she got off? A.—That was after she got off. Q.—And that was the year that you had the dealing with Boscowitz, the same year she got off? A.—Yes, the same year. Q.—-1 see you have a map in your hand; does that one suit 3'ou to show where the vessel went ashore? A.—Yes; some one told me I stated at Barclay Sound yesterday. If I did, it was Clayoquot. Q.—That is what I was trying to get you to say, and you insisted that it was Barclay Sound. Please explain now Avhere she went ashore? A.—She was coming into Clayo quot Sound, without steam, I understand. As near as I can place it she went on the sand flats off the bay. It is a shoal 60 there. Q.—Captain Warren, I followed you attentively yesterday, and because I am in some confusion of mind myself I assume that the learned Commissioners may be, and I have endeavored to arrive at some method of examining you with regard to the property on the ship that was taken. My method shall be as brief as possible. Will you be good enough to look at the inventory which is in evidence as part of Exhibit 45 G.B.—look at page 22 of that exhibit and the following 92; (J. D. Warren—-Cross.) pages, and tell me to the best of your knowledge and belief whether all of that property was on the ship at the time of th io e seizures A.—I see three boats should have been four. Q.—Look throughout. I simply ask you whether all the property there given was on the ship, to the best of your knowledge and belief; not whether there is any omitted, but whether to the best of your knowledge and belief all that property was on the ship as inventoried there? A.—I see twelve tons of coal; I would not like to say there were 12 tons left at that time. Of course I would not say there were not. Of course, so far as the sealskins were concerned, from personal knowledge I cannot say as to them. I see some of these things repeated in that list. I see three boats are in one place and four boats in another. Q.—Four boats was correct, was it? A.—Four would be correct. 20 Q.—Anything else? A.—There may be some things repeated and others that I have missed. There is one item here of one hundred pounds of lard. As far as I can find in my books, I do not find one hundred pounds charged to her. I think I can only find six boxes of bread charged in the books; I have no doubt the boat must have had considerable more bread than that on board, but I connot find the entries. Q.—I will come to that branch of the matter in a moment. What I want to know now is whether, to the best of your knowledge, these things were on the ship. To the best of your knowledge and belief were the three sails on the ship? A.—The three sails? Q.—Yes. A.—I cannot say positively, but there were two mainsails. Q.—Ought not you to know where the other sails came from? A.—I can only account for it in this way. In the spring she came out with a new suit, and she might have had an old extra mainsail for fear of accident. Q.—Have you not given that matter any attention? A.— 4° I cannot tell; it would be a second-hand sail, anyway. Q.—It would not be worth much? A.—It would not be a valuable sail. Q.—Is there anything else you want to call attention to that you would not like to say was on the ship to the best of your knowledge? A.—There might be other things repeated which in going over that list I might miss. Q.—Tell us what was on the ship that you know of that was not on that inventory? A.—I think this appears to me to he pretty complete. Q.—It does not appear to you that there is anything else? A.—From memory, I do not know that my memory recalls an3rt.Jb.ing now that I can think of. Q.—It seems to be, does it not, a very careful and faithfu inventory? It seems to you, as a claimant, and alleged owner of the ship, to be that? A.—As far as I can see. If my attention was called to something in particular, I might know something that was there but which I cannot think of now. It is very hard to remember everything. Q.—Instead of going through it item by item, and taking a long time, I have taken this method? A.—The guns would be taken off the vessel before this. I suppose the guns and amunition are not in this inventory at all. They are generally taken off at the time of seizure. Q.—Turn now to page 50 of this exhibit, No. 45, and state, does not this contain a proper account of the guns? A.—I think likely. So 60 928 IO (J. D. Warren—Cross.) Q.—And ammunition? A.—I think likely that would contain a proper account. Q.—It contains the number of guns? A.—The guns tally Avith mine. There were rifles and shotguns credited in my account that makes mine tally the same with that. Q.—Now, if you desire to take any further time for consideration, I think it would be a saving of time if you would look at that inventory and state if there is anything else, to the best of your knowledge, on the "Thornton" which is not embraced in the inventory contained in exhibit 45? A.—It would be hard for me to state that without comparing what went on board of her. Q.—You have not done that? A.—No, I don't think it has been all compared, not as far as I am concerned; some of the things, I believe, have been compared. They looked up the rifles and guns. Q.—Upon this claim, do you propose to put in a compari- 20 son later? You say they are being looked up? A.—I said that some of the articles have been compared, but I do not know that all of them have been. Q.—You found no discrepancy in the statement made, except those which are in favor of your account here? A.— Some of these things were found. Q.—And you make up your inventory—your estimate of the values in gross, of supplies? A.—I don't know whether the whole thing is made up yet or not. 0 Q.—Did you make it up for this hearing? A.—I have not, 3 but I don't know what the solicitor may have done. Q.—You have not made it up? A.—I assisted the man making it up, and I suppose he has finished it, but I do not know just what the total is myself. Q,—You have not that with you? A.—No, I haven't that. Q.—I think I understood you to say it has been figured out, and you think it is finished? A.—There has been a man making up a statement. Q.—For you? A.—For the claimant. Q.—For you? A.—Yes. 40 A.—My assistance, some Q.—And with your assistance of it. Q.—r-And that statement you have not with you? A.—No. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I do not think he understands what you are referring to. Mr. Dickinson:—Well. I will ask. (To witness) Q.—Of course I refer to the things found on the ship, and I have so said. A.—My statement is of the things that went on board S° the ship. Q.—That is the statement you have made? A.—Yes. Q.—You have made no deduction then, for the things that may have been used on the ship? A.—No, I thought that would be for after consideration. Q.—You said 3'ou had two guns credited back"; how were they credited back? A.—1 think one of the guns is credited to one of the other ships and charged to the other. • Q.—Did you get back any of the guns mentioned in the inventory-, in Exhibit 45? A.—Did I get any of the guns back?' Q.—Yes. A.—I do not think I did; I don't remember. Q.—Is there anything in that schedule or inventory that you did get back? A.—Is the chronometer in that? Q.—Yes. A.—I got that back. Q.—And you have so stated already. But is there anything else vou got back? A,—I cannot remember; I don't think it. 60 Q-- Q.—Yes, A.- was in them. Q-—You do not think that the "Thornton" was in them? A.—I cannot say now, if the guns of the "Thornton" in 1887 were there; I am not positive. Q.—Now, you say you do not know as to the number of seals. The log that you produced yesterday contains a statement of the catch, does it not? A.—I think likely it might; I would not be positive now whether the seals were in them or not. I see there was an inventory of other things. Q.—Will you please state, Captain Warren, from whom you received that log that you took when you took it to Ottawa? A.—Really, I am not positive, but I rather expect that I perhaps got it from the marshal at Sitka. Q.—Can you tell me when you took it to Ottawa? A.—I do not remember if it was the first trip, but I think it was 20 the second.. . Q.—But you did have it? A.—I must have taken it there. Q.—-You don't remember the fact that you got it at Sitka? •A.—I think that is the way I must have got it. I do not remember any other way. Q.—You went up to Sitka, did not you ? A.—In the spring of 1888, and if I remember aright I got the log and got the chronometer. I rather think I got a sextant. Q.—Anything else? A.—That is all I remember now. Q.—Were you frequently at Sitka in these years? A.— No, not frequently. Q.—Had you ever been at Sitka before you went there to see about these properties? A.—I had been there. Q.—When? A.—I was up there in 1868, I think; the winter of 1868. Q.—But your ordinary sealing business did not take you to Sitka then? A.—No Q.—So that it was a rather exceptional thing for you to go to Sitka in 1888? A.—Yes. Q.—Were you not there before 1888 and after the seizure? A.—I was there in 1868, and I was there when I was seized in 1887. Q.—Were you there in 1886? A.—I do not think it, I do not remember being there in 1886. Q.—Will you swear it? A.—I don't know as I would like to swear positivety, but I really don't remember being up there. Q.—Is your memory pretty good? A.—I don't know as it is an^hing extra. Q.—It being an exceptional thing for a seizure to occur, and an exceptional thing for 3'ou to go to Sitka, cannot you remember even the years you were there? A.—I only remember being there in 1887. I was there in 1886, I went up there for lumber then, and in 1887 under the seizure I was there, and then I went up again in 1888. Q-—What did you go for? A.—I went there when the vessel was seized. Q-—But you were not there with the exception of when you went because you were seized? A.—I think that is all. Q.—In 1887? A.—Yes. Q.—Are you quite sure? A.—I must be. Q-—After you were acting generally for the seized schooners and these claimants, did vou go to Sitka? A.—T do not think it. Q-—Was your trip there in 1S88 not after you were acting for these claimants? A.—That is after I Avas acting in Ottawa, y'ou mean? 59 930 1 10 (J. D. Warren—Cross.) Q.—Yes, you went to Sitka? A.—Yes. Q.—Now, Captain Warren, how many logs did you get at Sitka You were a little doubtful about when you took the log of the "Thornton,"but how many logs did you get from the officers of the court there? A.—I do not remember getting any "but the one. The "Thornton" was ordered released, and that is the reason I understood they were given to me. Q.—Was the "Carolena" released? A.—Yes. Q.—And the "Onward"? A.—And the "Onward." Q.—And they had been ordered released when you were there? A.—Yes.. Q.—The same order as in the case of the 'Thornton"? A. —I do not remember that I got their logs; though still I would not like to say I did not. Q.—Well, no, of course. What other logs did you get that time? You would not swear that you did not get the logs of the "Onward" and the "Carolena," and the "Thornton," 20 would you? A.—I would not like to swear it, but I do not remember of getting them. Q.—Did you have a trunk with you at that time? A.—At Sitka? Q.—Yes, at that time, in 1888? A.—I suppose I had a valise. Q.—Did you have a trunk? A.—I don't think it. Q.—Did you box up anything to bring away with you? A. —Yes, I expect that likely I did have a box for the guns. Q.—Did you box up some papers? A.—I don't think I 3° would have to box up some papers. Q-—Did you have it done? A.—I had some papers at the time, but I don't remember boxing any there. Q.—Papers that you got there? A.—Yes, that I got from the court, records of the court. Q.—Now, this is a rather important thing, to get the logs of the ships that had been seized by the United States, and cannot you remember what logs you got? A.—That is the only one that I remember; in fact, I do not think I had anything to do with the other vessels there; I went on our own business. Q.—Therefore, when you went to Ottawa, all the records that you obtained, and all the logs that you obtained, if you obtained any, you took with you? A.—Yes, as far as 1 know, I took them with me. Q.—All the papers with reference to all the ships that were seized or warned? A.—When I went to Ottawa? Q.—Yes, after you were at Sitka in 1888? A.—I took one log, and may be two, but I am not sure whether I had two or 5° not when I went to Ottawa in the spring of 1890. Q.—Did you take all the papers you had recovered at Sitka with reference to any of the seizures, when you went to Ottawa? A.—I do not think it. Q.—I suppose on these cases where you represented the claimants at Ottawa you were pretty well informed of the nature of the cases before 3rou made the statement in each case? A.—All these claims at Ottawa? Q.—Yes, of the facts, and the amounts ? 6o l had to get it from other memorandum. Q.—Memorandum made up from what? made up from invoices. Q.—And from statements that you had got from Sitka? A.—No, I do not think that any statemens from Sitka would have anything to do Avith that, no, sir, in 18S7. Q.—Captain Warren, did you leave receipts for this log that you- got? A,—For the log I got? 40 A.—Oh, the most A.—Memorandum y.—Yes. A.—Well, I would expect that whatever I got I would leaA'e receipts for them; I would likely have done so. y.—Did you leave receipts for anything else up there except the log? A.—The log and the chronometer and the sextant. y.—And the sextant, of course? A.—At that time? Q.—Yes. A.—I may possibly. I know I had a gun. y.—You knew your ship was released at that time? A.— What ship? Q.—The "Thornton. A.—Yes, I think so; I must have known at that time. y.—Did you leave receipts for anything else in regard to the "Thornton" except her log and her gun and the sextant and the chronometer? A.—That is all I remember. y.—Did you get anything else? A.—I cannot say. y.—And yet you make a charge against the United States for a whole lot of property, and you cannot say whether you had it. back or not? A.—I cannot tell from memory just what I did give a receipt for. y.—But you got whatever you gave a receipt for, didn't you? A.—I expect I did get whatever I gave a receipt for. y.—You saw the Thornton on the beach there in 1887? A. — \>s. Q.—And the "Carolena" and the "Onward" with her? A. —The "Carolena" was at anchor in the stream. Q.—And the "Thornton" was on the beach? A.—The "Thornton" was on the beach. Q—And where was the "Onward?" A.—The "Onward" was on the beach. Q.—And you consider them a total loss, including your own "Thornton?" A.—Oh, the vessels' could have been fitted up. Q.—You kept a diary at the time you were there at Sitka in 1887? A.—Yes, I think so. Q.—Does that diary contain any reference to the condition of the ships? A.—I can soon look and see. Q.—You have it there? A.—Yes, and I find a reference 40 here. Q.—That statement in that reference was made at the time in Sitka? A.—No, this was down in Ounalaska. Q.—I mean at Ounalaska. Was the statement that you made there correct, then, in regard to the ship? A.—Yes. Q.—Can I see that. Captain Warren? A.—Yes, certainty- Q.—I have not the right to see it. A.—I have no objection. Q.—Is there anything else about the ships there? A.—I think that is all there is. 30 SO 60 Sir C. H. Tupper:—Would you please read it out; I want to hear what the entry is. Mr. Dickinson:—Sir Charles Tupper requests it to be read, and this is the entry: "July the 13th, 18S7. Took a look at the schooners 'O. F. Fowler, S. F.' (San Francisco;) 'Carolena,' 'Onward,' 'Anna Beck,' and the 'Thornton.' The last is in a Arery bad state." By Mr. Dickinson:—Q.—There is nothing else there? A. That is all I can see. Q.—That is all the entries I care to look at now. Cap- 100* tain Warren, don't you know that the "Thornton Sea transferred a portion of its catch to one o vessels? A.—Not to my knowledge. Q.—None of it? A.—None of it. Q.—Did you have a report from your captain? he was in the Sea? Q.—Yes- A.—I had no report until after the seizure. in Behring your other \.—After 932 10 (J. D. Warren—Cross.) Q.—Did he write to you? A.—Yes. Q.—Where is his letter? A.—I think Sir Charles has it. Q.—Is there no other letter than that? A.—Whatever I had I gave to Sir Charles. Q.—Can you tell me whether there were any other letters from Captain Guttormsen? A.—I do not think so. Q.—Written from Ounalaska? A.—I do not think it. Q.—Written from Sitka or Ounalaska? A.—I do not think so; I think they were both from Sitka. I think there are two letters. I have the other in the office, likely. I showed it to Sir Charles, whatever there was. Q,—Is there not more than one? A.—There were two letters. Q-—You had your report of 403 seal skins? A.—Yes. Q-—At the time of the seizure of the "Thornton?" A.— tiis report, know that the 20 Yes; if it is in that book you have; that is Q-—Now, Captain Warren, did you not "Thornton" got more seals than that before the seizure? A. —I do not know of any more. Q.'—I call your attention to he log of the captain of the "Thornton" for the month of August, 1886, and I ask you if it appears that on the first of August the boats returned with 33 seals, in the handwriting of 3'our captain? Is that right? A.—That is what is down there. Q-—Well, that is in the captain's handwriting. Don't you know the handwriting in this log book is your captain's writing? You said in your direct examination that 30 you did. It is not in your handwriting, is it? A.—No, it is not in mine; I take it to be his handwriting: Q.—The boat returned with 33 seals, didn't it? A.—The entry is "the boats returned with 33 seals." Q.—Will you please give me your idea of the entry of July the first, "Dolphin, 107 seals," at the foot of the log entry of July the first, 1886? A.—I suppose that is the 107 seals that I reported I had on board. Q.—That you reported to the captain of the "Thornton?" A.—Yes, that I reported that I had on board; I told him I had that many seals, I believe, and I do not think he had one. He did not report any to me. Q.—But you' were not in Behring Sea at the time? A.—Not on the first of July. We went in on the second. Q.—You understood that the "Dolphin" had 107 seals caught outside? A.—Yes, I expect that is it. Q.—And when you report the name of another vessel after the word "seals," it means the seals that the other vessels had? A.—I suppose that is his way of entering it; that is the onlv waA' I could account for it. 40 50 60 Sir C. H. Tupper:—Would you mind, Mr. Dickinson, allowing the entry to go in in full? Mr. Dickinson:—1 have no objection. It is as follows: "Lowered boat and Avent on board the schooner "Dolphin." ("Dolphin" 107 seals.) (B3' Mr. Dickinson:) Q.—Now you find by your log marked No. 16 for identification, that the catch of seals'is down? A.—I see that he has some entries. Q.—From da3' to day? A.—Well, I have never examined it. Q.—You have never figured it to see whether the entries correspond? A.—Ne>, I don't think so. Q.—You find on July 21st 360 seals? A.—I see he has reported here. Q.—Is that an entry similar to the "Dolphin?" A,— Should Suppose it isv 933 (J. D. Warren—Cross—Inventory.) Q— The folloAving entry in the log, with the exception of the reference to the weather, and with another exception which I shall give, is as follows: "In company with schooner Onward'—360 seals:" The words "360 seals" are underscored. The other exception is, at the foot of the log, the last entry of the day. "The boats returned with 19 seals." (To witness:) Q.—There is an entry of July 17th that the IO boats returned with no seals; is that right? A.—Yes. Q.—I would like to ask you, Captain Warren, right here, if there are other entries of seals taken from day to day, in addition to those to which I have called your attention in this log? A.—I have not gone through it to see. Q-—I simply want to ask you to give me a general answer; I don't want to go into detail. A.—It will take some little time to see. Q.—No, it will not. Listen to the question. In addition to these to which I specifically called your attention in the 20 log book, are there other catches of seals in the Behring Sea given from day to day in this log book which has been marked, No. 16, for identification? A.—There are others. Q.—In whose writing is this log book which has been marked 16 for identification? Are the pages that I now show you, commencing with the heading, "Inventory of Schooner ''Thornton"—in whose handwriting are these pages? A.— I take it to be in the hanelwriting of the captain? Q.—Captain Guttormsen? A.—Yes. Q.—It appears to be taken, does it not, after the entries in 3° the log book of the proceedings in the court of Sitka in which he was a party with the "Thornton?" A.—It is put down later on the log book. Q.—At the end of that inventory you find in the same handwriting, do 3'ou not: "See in remarks for August 7th?" A. —(Examining.) Yes, sir. Q.—And on August 7th you find an entry in the log in this handwriting of the names of the crew and a statement of the articles taken from the schooner, do you not, together with 40 the entry of the captain's protest signed by him? A.—Yes, sir. The inventory and extracts from the log are as follows: INVENTORY OF SCHOONER "THORNTON." 3 Axes 3 Anchors 1 Augur 1 Brace and bit -* 1 Broom (corn) 4 Buckets (deck) 1 Bell (ship) 1 Bellows (hand) I 2 Barometers 1 Binnacle light 2 Blocks, (double) 2 Blocks (single) 4 Boats and sails 60 2 Files 1 Flag (Br.) 1 Fog Horn 4 Fishing lines 2 Feeders (?) (oil) 2 Fire tools 1 Grindstone 1 Globe lantern 2 Guy hosses (?) I 934 (Inventory—Continued.) 8 1 1 4 2 1 2 5 3 10 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 120 1 7 10 1 12 1 1 1 4 12 20 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 403 1 3 Hatches (?) Hammers Feet hose (rubber) Jugs, water, (stone) .... Kettle (iron) Knives Lamps (swinging) Casks (water) Chisel (wood) Chisel (coal) Compasses (boat) Compasses (steering) .. Clock Cables (chain) Coals, ton Charts Canvas, yards Caulking iron Coffee pot (tin) Lantern (deck) Leads (rig) Set lanterns (side) Lay (?) line and glasses Lead line and lead Life buoy and line .... feet Manilla (2£ in.) ... Mallet (swing) bbls. nails Gallons oil (fish) Gallons oil (coal) pr. oars (10 ft.) Palm Paddles Plane Pump (bilge) Pitcher Feet packing (rubber) .. Pair rowlocks Sacks (?) salt Tow Stoves Square (carpenter) .... Spike (martin) Shirts (calico) Shirt (woollen) Shovels (iron) Screw Screwdriver Starting bar Fur seal skins Hair seal skin Pups' seal skin 3 Main sails 2 Foresails 1 Jib 1 Flying job 1 Slab bucket 3 Tanks water) 1 Wach (?) tackle . Tarpulins 1 Wrench (monkey) 1 Wrench (large) .. 935 (Inventory—Continued.) 1 Engine and boiler 1 Smoke stack 4 Boat tackles Complete running gear:— 1 Pair overhauls 2 Pounds tobacco • 2 Stoves 5 Boxes bread 450 Pounds flour 100 Pounds Rice 100 Pounds sugar 42 Packages tea 10 Pounds coffee 1 Dipper 1 Carring for] 2 Packages hops £ Tin pepper 2 Tins lard 10 Rolls butter 4 Spur poles 6 Pair spurs (iron) 3 Hooks (iron) 2 Bands (iron, for mast head) 4 Sheets emery cloth 1 Bar 2 Range (small) 2 Spar cans 2 Hand lamps 1 Whistle 3 Glasses 2 Pounds red lead rands white lead 6 Bowls cutting 3 S. S. ranges Caulking tools 1 I 'ropeller 1 Condenser 4 Pumps 2 Tube rods 1 Gauge Vaccum 1 Gauge steam $ Coil Manilla (f in.) 1 Mincing knife 1 Tube blower 2 Scrapers (steel) 26 Empty bags 7 Boat masts 1 Chronometer Arms and ammunition Size of main mast on board "Thornton":— From deck to tressel-trees 42 ft. Diameter of apartments ........ 21 ins. Diameter of tressel-trees 7 ins. Length between decks 4 ft. 10 ins. Length of mast head 6 ft. EXTRACTS FROM LOG OF "THORNTON." Aug. 7, 1886.—Fresh breezes and cloudy weather. Still located in Port Tiloluk. At 9 a.m. an officer from the cutter came on board and took some provisions from the schooner (as mentioned below). '*?'■{»-■" -! i To be sent to San Francisco in steamer St. Paul. 936 (Inventory—Continued. J. D. Warren—Cross.) At 3 p.m. took 10 men, named as follows:— Fred Wilber, hunter Neil Morison, hunter George W. Cleveland, hunter George Johnson, hunter .lohn Douggan, boat-puller John Dallas, boat-puller 10 Jack Douglas^ boat-piiller ' Sam Lawless, boat-puller Wm. Cleveland, boat-puller Tiy Fang, cook Articles taken from the schooner:— 100 lbs. flour 25 lbs. rice 69 lbs. beans 20 16 lbs. dried apples 15 lbs. sugar 2 boxes bread 6 cups 10 knives 15 spoons 2 large tin pans, 1 tin butter 2 tin kettles, 1 dipper 1 saucepan, 1 carving 3 baking pans, knife. 30 For use of U. S. in transferring prisoners to San Francisco. 5C- 60 Q.—The other letter, if you have it, from Capt. .Guttormsen, where is that? A.—I think it is in my office. Q.—How many others are there? A.—If I remember right there was only two altogether. y.—1 want your memory? A.—That is all I think there are. y.—Did he only write you two letters? A.—I think only two. Q.—Will you produce the other? A.—I will. Q.—The "Thornton" was towed into Behring Sea by the "Dolphin"? A.—I towed her in. Q.—She had her steam fittings, did she not, your auxiliary that cost $3,000? A.—She had her steam power there. Q.—Was she re-buill at the time she had the steam auxiliary put in? A.—Before that. Q.—Was there anything else put in with her steam auxiliary? A-—Nothing except putting in new stern posts and dead woods. Q.—In order to fit the steam auxiliary? A.—Yes. Q.—That made a very fast boat, did it not? A.—I don't know, she was pretty fast, and she would sail better without the machinery in her I suppose. Q.—You have some entry of this cost of $3,000; have you not, Captain Warren? A.—Yes. Q.—Show the cost of $3,000 for that steam auxiliary? A. —I don't know whether I can separate the account. Q.—How much was the power of that steam auxiliary? A.—Oh, I suppose it would drive her about— Q.—Give us the power by horse power? A.—Oh, I couldn't tell you that. Q-—You couldn't tell the horse power you had put in at this cost of $3,000, could not tell the amount of horse power you were going to give the "Thornton"? A.—I cannot figure ' those things. 3o 40 So Q.—And did you not know when you bought the engine what horse power you were getting? A.—Not the horse power, I don't think I did. Q.—Whether exact or not, did you come near it? calculated to drive her about four knots. Q.—Did you not buy it by horse power? A.—No. Q.—Was it anything more than a donkey engine, Warren? A.—Well, it was a small engine. Q.—Was it one horse power? A.—More than that. Q.—How much? A.—I couldn't say. Q.—Will you give us an idea? A.—I cannot figure horse power in figures—I have seen a good many engineers that couldn't. Q.—You registered her, did you not? A.—She was registered after the steam was put in. Q.—You did it? A.—I expect so. Q.—And the horse power you registered was just 1.21 ? A. —It may have been. Q.—And the size of the engine you registered, the diameter of the cylinder 6£ inches; is that right? A.—Yes, sir. . Q.—And the length of stroke 12 inches? A.—That's right. But a horse power engine is according to the pressure of steam they carry, what they actually exert. Mr. Dickinson:—You stated, Sir Charles, that the tonnage given by us as agreed on must be a mistake, when we said it Avas 22.30 with the eleductions for steam fittings. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I was wrong, I have the paper here. Mr. Dickinson:—The exact tonnage as registered as we agree, to remove the misapprehension, is as follows: Particulars of tonnage. No. of tons, 29.57; cabin cover, 3.22; total, 32.79. Deductions per contra, 10.49; registered tonnage, 22.30. The per contra, is explained by the steam auxiliary.'. Q.—Now you figured this vessel as Avorth $6,500 as she was Avhen seized? A.—I figured her .as worth $6,000. Q.—You put her into the firm of Warren & Boscowitz in the spring of 1886, did you not? A.—I never put her into the firm of Warren & Boscowitz yet that I know of. Q.—Was Boscowitz interested in that enterprise? A.—He was as a money loaner. Q.—Were you to divide the profits that year? A.—I was to let him have all the seals at the cost of every expense of getting them. agreement with Boscowitz? agreement with him in 1886? Q.—Did you have a written A.—I had letters to show— Q.—Did you have a written A.—Myself, no. Q.—Did you not put in the schooner against his wishes, for outfitting in the. spring of 1886, to divide the profits and losses, share and share alike? A.—No, we got them from the asigneese with the calculation between Boscowitz and I to go on just the same as usual. Q.—Did you not, in that arrangement with Boscowitz put Go the "Thornton" among other contributions of yours in at $4,000? A.—As to her value? Q.—Yes. A.—No. Q.—And did you not afterwards when you made a settlement with Boscowitz in October, 1886, before Boscowitz left for England, figure up the profits for the year and find the profits to be $21,000 and some odd dollars, charge back the loss of the "Thornton" and her valuation including the entire outfitting at $4,000? A.—No. 93§ I 1 (J. D. Warren—Cross.) Q.—And strike a balance of $17,800 and odd dollars, a«d divide between you the shares of $8,000 and odd dollars? A. —No. The steamer herself was not in it; he took his outfit- tings back from her. Q.—Did Boscowitz contribute the money for the outfitting? A.—He did, the most of it. Q.—Did Boscowitz pay the expenses of your trips to Alio aska and to OttaAva when you went up on this business? A. —If he did he charged them to me. y.—Did he pay the money? A.—He may have loaned me the money. y.—He advanced the money to you, whatever it may be called? A.—Yes y.—Every cent, did he not? A.—I don't think he did all. y.—Now you say your schooners were all fitted out to leave the sea at the end of September? A.—In that neighborhood. y.—Did you ever know a sealing vessel that stayed in Behring Sea to the end of September in those years? A.— In them years I don't think I do. and I think likely there was vessels in before— y.—You did not begin to enter Behring Sea until 1886? A. —The Victorians did not as a rule. y.—Can you tell me of a single vessel that remained in Behring Sea in 1886 or 1887 as late as September? A.—I don't know as I know of one. y.—You were first in Behring Sea in 1886? A.—In 1886. 30 Q.—You have answered to counsel in the direct examination that you fitted out your ships the 1st of September for Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you want to correct your testimony? A.—No. Q.—What was the usual time for leaving Behring Sea of the whole of the sealing fleet? A.—We were commencing at that time, I intended to have stopped in until the end of September. Q.—Have you learned since by experience that there is no sealing to be had after the 25th August? A.—Yes, sir. 4° Q.—Any sealing done in later years after the 1st September? A.—Yes, I think there is. I know of vessels getting back pretty well to the end of October—the 20th. Q.—Did they stop and seal on the coast? A.—On the coast coming back? Q.—Yes. A.—It is too late. Q.—Now can you tell me a single ship that has ever, from 1886 down to this last sealing season, both inclusive, sealed in Behring Sea after the 1st of September? A.—No, I don't -0 know just what they have done. } Q.—And the usual time for leaving Behring Sea in 1886, 1887 and 1888 was the 20th August, was it not? A.—In 1886 and 1887 there was too much seizures going on for vessels to stay there. Q.—Now we will come back to the seizures. You did not seem very much afraid, your whole fleet was in again in 1887? A.—I did not expect they would seize again. Q.—What time did you get out in 1886? A.—I came out myself on the 12lh August. 60 Q.—When did the rest of your fleet come out? A.—I think a little later. Q.—They stayed until the 20th, did they not? A.—They may have, some of them, perhaps. Q.—All of them with the exception of the "Dolphin"? A. —I thought I had a memorandum here somewhere. Q.—You cannot answer now? A.—(Referring to memorandum). The 'Grace left the Sea about the 15th ahd the Io 30 839 (J. D. Warren—Cross.) '<&nna Beck" about the 19th; that is about as near as I can figure it up. Q.—The "Sayward"? A.—I don't know what time she ieft; she got home here the 13th of September. Q.—Did you have any one to keep an account at your trading stations of what was put on board the ships? A.—Yes, they are supposed to, to send the account in to the head office at Victoria. Q-—And whatever was put on the schooners you had such an account? A.—Supposed to. Q-—And then transfer it to your books here? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—Your books show an acount of your trading stations of course? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—The Indians furnished their own meats did they? A. —In Behring Sea that year? Q-—Yes. A.—I don't think we furnished them any meat. Q— What did you give the Indians from your stores? A.— 20 I gave the Indians, each man, four biscuits a day. Q.—Four cakes of pilot bread? A,—No, four biscuits. Q.—That is pilot bread? A.—Yes, the pilot bread, and I gave them—well I don't remember how much sugar; I gave them an allowance of sugar, rice once a week, beans once a Aveek—well tea and coffee, I think I used to give them some every day, a certain amount. Q.—Did they buy any stuff of you any extra they bought, I gave them they bought the balance. Q-—What did you give them that you did not make them pay for? A.—That was what I was mentioning, four biscuits a day a man, a certain amount of sugar, I don't remember now what it was. Q.—Every man a day some sugar? A.—Every man; I allowed them a certain amount of sugar for a lot, for tea and coffee—so much tea and so much coffee, then I allowed them one feed of rice a week and one feed of beans. Q.—And for the rest? A.—As near as I can remember Avhat they did not have they bought. Q.—They had their own supplies of fish and seal meat? A.—Fish and seal meat. Q.—I am going to ask you, man by man, or if any have the Same lay putting them all in together so as not to take space, the lay of every man on the "Thornton" for 1886? A.— Each of the hunters was $1.50 for each skin. Q.—And how many hunters at $1.50 per skin? A.—Four hunters, that is $1.50 per each skin they bringing their own boat. , Q.—And did they bring their own boats? A.—What they caught themselves each hunter would get $1.50 a skin. Q.—I am talking of not what they would get but what the arrangement was for 1886? A.—That is the arrangement for 1886. There was five of the boat pullers I see are signed at 50 cents each. (Referring to log.) Q.—Anything in the lay? A.—50 cents a skin; there are three boat pullers not in, that I see; they are very likely on pay. Q.—How many boat pullers had 50 cents a lay? A.—Five. Q.—And what are the others? A.—I don't see their agreement here (referring to log.) Q.—Have you not had an accounting with them? A.— There has been an accounting, but from memory I could not say. I expect, very likely, being Indians, they were paid by the month. Q.—The other three? A.—Yes, I think, likely. I only see five signed here. 40 SO Go 940 (J. D. Warren—Cross.) The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—DTd Dallas sign? A.—Yes. Q-—You are not positive that the remaining three had no lay are you, Capt. Warren? A.—No, I am not positive, I am under the impression Q.—If there is any doubt about it, Capt. Warren, I wish you io would supply it when you bring that letter. If there is any lay for the others not named will you please let us know? A.—Yes. Q-—The captain, you said, had no lay, and the mate? A. —I think the captain had a lay. Q.—Well, let us have that, it is important that we should have the lay accurately. A.—But I don't think the mate had any lay. Q.—Had you not a settlement with them? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—You can give us the facts can you not? A.—The 20 books will show, I suppose. Q.—Can you not gtee us the facts, Capt. Warren, about, this lay? A.—I think likely I can get it from the book. Q.—You knew it was going to be important and material? A.—Tt is all made up into the cost. Mr. Dickinson:—I Avish you to give us the lay of these men, the captain anel everybody else, in such shape that yon are willing to SAvear to it, you are the owner of the ship. We ought to have this. J Q.—You have had some litigation with Mr. Boscowitz? A. —Yes. Q.—And your wife has had some? A.—She has had some little, yes. Q.—And Mr. Cooper has been a party with you to those litigations. Thomas Cooper, of San Francisco? A.—Yes, he has been a party in it nominally. Q.—Will you please tell us what Mr. Cooper's interest in these vessels was? A.—His interest was merely holding 40 for me. Q.—He is an American citizen, is he not? A.—No. y.—Lives in San Francisco? A.—Lives in San Francisco. y.—How did he derive title? A.—Did you give a bill of sale? A.—Well, we put the vessels up at auction and I bid them in in his name. y.—And for what consideration did he take them? A.— Two of them $6,000 each, half of one $2,500. y.—You do not mean to say at the auction that he or you paid any such money? A.—He did not pass any money. y.—Did you? A.—No. y.—Put them up at auction and they sold for $1.00, did they not? A.—No, they sold for the amounts, I bid them in at the amounts I stated. y.—How did you get at those? A.—Well, the amounts that they bid them in at and what they went in is named at— y.—He paid nothing? A.—No. Q.—You paid nothing? A.—Not at that time, no. y.—Who put them up? A.—They were put up under Mr. 60 Boscowitz' mortgages. Q.—Sort of friendly arrangement between you and Mr. Boscowitz? A.—It was to get control of the vessels in my. name without having to go to the assignee, so 1 could control them and take them out of the hands of the assignee. Q.—It was a friendly arrangement between you and Boscowitz? A.—Yes. Q.—How long has Cooper lived in San Francisco? A.— Well, he has lived there a number of years. SO 94i (J. D. Warren—Cross.) ««Q.—He has lived there about 25 years, has he not? A.—I think likely. Q.—And Cooper is the man in whose behalf you presented these claims? A.—Yes, he was the registered owner, I put them in his name. Sir C. H. Tupper:—You say these claims—this was not put up that year. io Q.—The litigations covered the "Thornton," as well as the other, did they not? A.—Well, I don't know whether they would cover the "Thornton." Mr. Boscowitz took all of his money that he advanced— Q.—We will not go into the Boscowitz law suit, except so far as it bears on the "Thornton." Now, you testified in those cases, did you not? A.—Yes. Q.—And you testified about the doings of the "Thornton," her connection with your business and Boscowitz, did you not? A.—I don't just remember. -o Q.—You testified in the case of Warren v. Boscowitz in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, did you not? A.—I expect so. Q-—Did you testify in that matter as follows; I hold in my hand a copy of the testimony of Warren v. Boscowitz. "Q.— It is the fact that all the schooners were seized by the United States Government in the year 1887? A.—There was one seized in 1886; there were four more in 1887." Witness:—Yes, I expect so. Q-—Did you, in that connection, state to this question: 3° "Q.—Anel the 'one' you referred to was the 'Thornton,' was it not? A.—The 'Thornton." Q-—Did you, in that connection, state to this question: "Q.—You say you gave instructions for the defence. I shall read you Oooper's defence to Mr. Boscowitz' e-laim. You are aware of the fact that Mr. Boscowitz has commenced litigation in order to get his claim, or a portion of it, in his own name? A.—I have heard something about it." 40 Witness:—What is this from? . Mr. Dickinson:—This is from the case of Warren v. Boscowitz. ■ Witness:—Is it from the shorthand taker or from the judge's notes? Mr. Dickinson:—The stenographic minutes of the testimony in open court. 50 Witness:—I think the shorthand man's statement is tolerably correct. Q.—To this question did you return an answer which I will read to you: "Q.—Well, you know something about it. The contention on your part, and what has been admitted, is that the claim belongs, or any profits to be made out of this claim belong half to you and half to Mr. Boscowitz? A.—The profits, after all expenses and every other person has been paid." A.—Yes. 60 "Q.—Half to you and half to Mr. Boscowitz? A.—That is my contention." A.—Yes, I expect that's right. Q.—And Mr. BoscoAvitz did claim half the profits in his own name, did he not? A.—From the government? Q.—Half the profits of the sealing season of 1886? A.— I expect Mr. Boscowitz expected to get half the profits. Q.—Now, you did have a settlement with Boscowitz, in October, 1886?* A—Yes, 942 3o that is an accurate account of the sealing business? Bales had the account, and " (J. D. Warren—Cross.) Q.—Did you testify as follows in the case of Warren v. Boscowitz, on examination of Mr. Davie, referring to the business of 1886: "Q.—Just look at this account and see if A.—Mr. ue sa3's it is a correct copy as per books, I don't know, I suppose it is. Q.—You might tell me this before I sit down. This account 'K' shows the balance io of profit to be $22,140.20. How is that reduced to $17,000? You can just give us that by the books. A.—There was a loss on the "Thornton" of $4,001.48, that is the "Thornton" sailed for Behring Sea. and never returned." Did you so testify? A.—Yes, that is, with reference to the outfit, not the "Thornton" herself. Q.—That is your explanation, is it? A.—Yes. Q.—"And what were those other amounts charged against? A.—Those are the profits of the different schooners. This is the aggregate here." That was your answer, was it? A.— 20 Yes. Q.—"And that is the way that is reduced, by the loss of the 'Thornton?' A.—By the loss of the 'Thornton' in not returning. Q—That reduced it to $17,980.95? A.—To $17,- 980.95, of course." Q.—Now, having refreshed your memory by your testimony, is it true that you and Boscowitz came to an accounting in October, 1886, for the season of 1886? A.—Yes. Q.—Is it true that the profits for the season for all the schooners, including the "Thornton," were estimated at $22,- 140.20? A.—No. Q.—Is it true that without deducting an3dhing for the "Thornton" the profits of the fleet were estimated, including the "Thornton" at $22,140.20? A.—No, the profits taken into consideration at that time was not the vessels at all; it was the proceeds of the sealing outfit, the value of the vessels was not taken in at all. Q.—Were the profits without any deduction $22,140.20? A. The profits on the other vessels would have been that amount 4° leaving the "Thornton" out altogether. Q.—Then, to reduce the amount to $17,980.95 you had to deduct the "Thornton?" A.—Not the "Thornton," that is her outfit. Q.—You had to deduct $4,001.48 on account of the "Thornton? A.—On account of the "Thornton" it was all outfit, there was no vessel in that at all, the value of no vessel. Q.—Boscowitz. paid the outfit, did he not? A.—He paid the outfit and he deducted his money out of it, I believe, I 5° advanced some of the money towards the outfit, but he paid the principal. Q.—But you stated on the hearing in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, that the reduction was made from $22,- 340.20 by the loss of the "Thornton" in not returning, that is what you stated? A.—Certainly it was through that, Q—Now. then, after deducting on account of the "Thornton" vour total profits were $17,980.95, that is right, is it? A.—Yes. 6o y._And that you divided by two, $8,990.47 for yourself and $8,990.47 for BoscoAvitz, is that right? A.—Yes, that is right. Mr. Peters:—Mr. Spring has done the best he could to make out a statement showing the cost per man. He finds it a puzzling thing to do Avithout being able to refer to the books on the coast, which he has not at hand, and anything from him would be guess work, that he could not state on oath, in fact 943 (J. D. Warren—Cross.) he never has made up one, and he finds he cannot make up one satisfactory to himself, therefore it would not be satisfactory to the court. This he regrets very much. At 1 p.m, the Commissioners took recess. io 40 50 60 At 2:30 p.m. the Commissioners resumed their seats. Cross- examination of Captain Warren continued by Mr. Dickinson: Q-—Are you prepared to complete your testimony as to the lay of the men on the "Thornton?" A.—I have searched the books and excepting two Indians getting $25 a month each, I had receipts payments made to the other men, but they don't state how the terms was made up. Q-—They did have a lay, the other men? A.—I think the others, as far as I know. There is one man I cannot find, it doesn't say who they are, or how they are made up. Q.—You mean as to the five men you testified about this morning at a 50 cent lay? A.—Yes.* Q-—There are two Indians at $25 a month who had no lay, then the absent man? A.—The absent man I can't find. Q-—Nor the captain? A.—The captain. There is a receipt there for payment, but I am quite satisfied in my own mind he was getting $50 and a lay of 12 1-2 cents. Q.—The mate? A.—The mate was $40 a month as near as my record shows without a lay. Q-—Anybody else on the ship that had a lay? A.—Not excepting that odd man, he may have had. Q.—Not to exceed 50 cents, I suppose? A.—No, it wouldn't exceed that I shouldn't suppose. The captain's lay would be on the whole catch. Q.—And the men's lay? A.—On the catches of their own boat. Q.—It would average 50 cents a skin? A.—It would make 50 cents a skin for each man; that would be a dollar a skin and a dollar and a half would be two and a half,' it would be about two dollars and a half a skin, and then the captain's lay of 12 1-2 cents more. Q.—In the season of 1886 you were in the hands, I think, of an assignee? A.—Yes. Q.—And did Boscowitz charter the "Thornton" from your assignee that year? A.—Yes, he went through the form of chartering. y.—At $200 a month? A.—It varied. y.—Was your assignee a Mr. Griffith? A.—Yes. y.—The title has never been taken out of your assignee, I suppose—of the "Thornton ?" A.—No, I suppose not. y.— ifoui* affairs were never settled so far as the assignment is concerned? A.—No. y.—I am going to call your attention to the case of Boscowitz against Warren in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, the testimony of J. D. Warren, page 31, question 406, by Mr. Taylor; and I ask you if you testified in accordance with what I now read you. "What was the arrangement between you and Mr. Boscowitz regarding this sealing venture? A..—My arrangement was that I was to put in the bare schooners, and he was to furnish all outlays in every shape. The charter was put in to show that he Avas not the owner of the vessel, in case that the law would take hold of us, to show the vessel still belonged to me, he not being a British subject. Therefore J Avas allowed so much a month for the vessels 944 '.■-• 3Q 40 record on the appeal of British Columbia, plaintiff, and Jo- Cooper, defendants, (J. D. Warren—Cross.) against all outlays, repairs, sails, and other things, insurance on the hulls which were to be returned to me. When the vessels came back with the seals he was to get that from the proceeds. I was to get, in lieu of it, so much a month for the expenses." Is that correct? A.—That is correct. Q.—Was that true, that testimony as given there? A.— Yes, I guess that is true. 10 Q-—I now Ca'l your attention to the to the Full Court, the Supreme Court the suit between Hannah Warren, seph Boscowitz and Thomas Henry by an original action, and between Joseph Boscowitz, plaintiff, and the said Hannah Warren and Thomas Henry Cooper, and James Douglas Warren, Thomas H. Tye, Matthew T. Johnston, and Arthur L. Belyea, as defendants by counter claim. Have you seen this printed record. A.—I don't know whether T have or not. I suppose I have seen the ac- 20 counts of the proceedings—oh, the printed, 3res, I think I have. Q.—I call your attention to the printed proceedings in this case, the examination of James D. Warren in chief by Mr. Belyea, and ask if you testified as follows in that case on December 13th, 1890:—"931. Q.—I want you to state, as nearly as you can, what the cost of those vessels was. A.—The cost of running them? 932. Q.—No, the vessels? A.—Well, I put the "Thornton," I think, at $4,000, that is the time she had her machinery put into her, and was made a steamer of." Did you so testify? A.—Yes, I expect so, I don't know whether that is exactly the way I put it or not. Q.—Have you any doubt, about it, that is the printed record in this appeal prepared by your counsel? A.—If it is put in the value of the vessel, I doubt it. I think I was putting it in as value for him as security. Q.—I ask you whether you so testified on December 13th, 1.890, in that cause, just as I have read it to you? A.—(Examining), I don't recollect of making that statement to say that the "Thornton" was valued at $4,000 for she certainly cost me more money than that considerable. Q.—But you find in that connection, do you not, following the testimony I have read to you that you proceeded to give, not the mortgages on the other ships, but their valuation I think, in most of them, perhaps all of them. Q.—All of them, had you not? A.—I gave the cost, I think, in the most of them, per haps all of them. Q.—But you say that although this testimony speaks directly of your putting the cost of the "Thornton" down at $4,000, that testimony is erroneous? A.—Yes, she cost more 5° than that. Q.—The question is not what the fact is, but whether you so testified. If you say you did not it puts us to the trouble of proving that you did. A.—I don't remember of the statement of putting her in that way at the cost. Q.—But you did put in all the other vessels of" the fleet in the same connection and immediately following? A.—They are there about the cost, the others. Q.—And your attention was directly called to the question 60 of cost by your own question? A.—So it appears. Q.—You said back, "The cost of running them?" he answered back, "No, the vessels?" meaning the cost of the vessels? A.—Certainly. All I know $4,000 could not be cor rect Q. ra the cost. -In the event of your recovery in the hornton" case and which you have been presenting to your own Governmeni to the Commission, is Mr. Joseph Boscowitz by your arrange- ment to receive one-half? A.—Of the recovery of the "Thornton?" O.—Yes, sir? A.—No. Q.—He contends, does he not, that he is to receive it all? A.—Of the value? Q.—Yes. A.—I don't think it, unless he wants to take it on general account. I0 Q.—Now, at the time you testified as to putting the machinery on, and after the machinery was put on, you put a mortgage, I think yon have said, to Joseph Boscowitz for $4,- 000? A.—$4,000, yes. Q.—That, you observe—it may be a coincidence—was just about the cost of the "Thornton" as you are claimed to have stated it in that testimony in the Supreme Court? A.—I might have had reference to the mortgage that he had as security, certainly the cost is more than that. Q.—Where did you buy that engine? A.—From a man 20 by the name of Gowen. Q.—Made it here? A.—Made it here. Q.—Where is he? A—I don't know. Q.—When did you last see him? A.—I haven't seen him for some years. Q.—Did* he build it here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What was his business? A.—Machinist. Q.—Did you look up the price of engines at all before -you ordered this constructed? A.—Oh. I enquired around some. Q.—Had you put in steam fittings before in any boats? A. 3° I don't think so. Q.—Still it was being done here? A.—Oh, yes, it was being done. Q.—And engines were purchased ready-made frequently, were they not, to put into the ships? A.—Very often. Q.—Did vou have a machine shop here that built engines? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And had engines for sale? A.—Built them to order. Q.—Did this man have a machine shop? A.—Yes. aq Q.—Where was it situated? A.—It was situated on Store street, a little to the other side of Victoria street, as you go out. . Q.—And his full name? A.—Thomas Gowan, or Gowen, I wouldn't be positiA'e. Q.—Do you know when he left here? A.—No, I don't know just the year. Q.—Did you ever hear where he went? A.—He was in Westminster for some time, he was on the Sound, and after that I think he went to Westminster. Q.—He may be there now? A.—No, he left there, I don't know where he is now. Q.—About what time did he leave Victoria? A.—Oh. he must have left Victoria about eight or 10 years ago, I think. Q.—Did anyone succeed to his business? A.—No. Q.—Closed up? A.—Closed up the place. Q.—For how long a time did you fit out the "Thornton," do you say, in 1886? A.—For how long a time did I fit her out? Q.—Yes, in May? A.—Well, she was fitted out, it was some time in September, she didn't have all her stuff on board then. She hael all aboard. I guess, that was charged to her. Q.—For about four months? A.—For about four months. Q.—That, of course, includes the time it takes to come pack from Behring Sea? A.—No, she would be rather over that, three or four months generally speaking. Q.—You fitted her out for a full season of about four months' fishing and hunting in the Northern Pacific and in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, about that. CO SO 6o 946 J. D. Warren—Cross—Re-direct.) io 20 30 40 So 60 y.—When you saw the "Thornton" on the beach up there in July, 1887, did you consider her a total loss? A.—Oh, the vessel could be got off and fixed up right enough. y.—At a cost less than her value? A.—Perhaps some; it would cost a good deal of money. y.—Did you state in your presentation of your claim as your solemn and sincere declaration to the British Government that from the inspection made by you on the 13th of July, 1887, you believe from your inspection it would cost over $4,000 to take the "Thornton" from Ounalaska to Victoria and put her in good order? A.—To take men there, take^her off, and put her in thorough good order machinery and every-> thing else, it would cost $6,000. Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper. Q.—A question I omitted to ask you, Mr. Warren, and that is, what use you made of these vessels after your coast sealing? A.—Some of them I used to do freighting with. Q.—In what seasons of the year? A.—The fall and winter. Q.—Did you use the "Thornton" for that purpose? A.— Yes. Q.—And you sent a fleet out in 1887 to Behring Sea after having been there in 1886, did you send all the fleet you had except the "Thornton" in 1887? A.—To Behring Sea? y _Yes. A.—Well, the "Rustler" was wrecked. y.—I say the fleet you had the management of? A.—Yes, I think so. y.—If you had had the "Thornton" you would have sent her to Behring Sea? A.—Yes, I expect so. y.—Not what you expect, but what was your plan in 1886? A.—My plan was to send all to Behring Sea, and I believe I intended to send the "Rustler" too, if she hadn't been lost. y.—You were asked in reference to the books that were kept. You were away a good part of the time in these years from Victoria? A.—In 1886 I was away for almost a whole sealing season. • y.—Now, some of these vessels, including the "Thornton, were in the habit of obtaining supplies outside of Victoria, that is for instance, the "Dolphin" gave in the "Thornton's" case, some supplies, 3'ou had trading posts, 3rou sa3'. What was the manner in which the items for those books were received at Victoria where the books were1? A.—The people at those places would make out a statement on a sheet of paper and send it up to the head office. y.—Who handed in the slips here, the people or the captain of the vessel? A.—The people at the station when they delivered goods to the vessels gave the captain an account, if the captain delivered anythiug to them he would send in his account. y.—Those were sent to Victoria or should be? A.—Should be. y.—As a matter of fact how did the captains keep these accounts on bt>oks or slips of paper? A.—I can hardly say; some of them, I know, had little books that they kept to enter them on. Q.—But they always kept them on books or slips of paper? A.—I cannot say, I elon't recollect, I didn't. alwa3-s see their books. Q.—You told Mr. Dickinson that you had some books in 1886 and you mentioned among other things a bank account, or Mr. Dickinson mentioned that; had you a bank account in 1886? A.—I had only a bank account of the steamer, Q.—What steamer? A.—The "Boscowitz," IO So 60 1883 annually? she Yes, eA'ery was insured in urveyed ? A.— 30 (J. D. Warren y.—Mr. Dickinson was referring to the "Thornton' you any bank account? A.—Not in 1886; I hadn't. Q— Had you any bank account covering the "Thornton's" transactions? A.—Not in '86; no. Q-—In 1883 you say this vessel was ashore at Clayoauot Sound? A.—Yes. Q— Did you see the vessel ashore there? A.—I saw while she was ashore. Q-—What character of shore was it, rocky or sandy? A. She was laying on the sand flat; quite smooth water where she was. Q.—Did you see her at low water? ound her. Q-—Did you examine her? A.—Yes. Q.—Was she injured? A.—Not that I could see. Q— Was she got off? A.—She was got off. Q-—And did she pursue her regular business in 1883 1884 20 1885 and up to 1886? A.—Yes. Q-—And did you observe any bad effect from the grounding—stranding? A.—No, I didn't. Q-—You spoke of overhauling your vessels constantly; was this vessel overhauled after year. Q.—Was the vessel surveyed before 1885? A.—Yes, she was surveyed. Q.—Do you recollect by whom she was By Captain Lewis. Q.—In regard to your vouchers I understand from you in 3'our direct examination that you have not in existence today the A'ouchers and memorandum which you had in 1887 connected with the "Thornton?" A.—No. Q.—Am I right? A.—You are right. Q.—Nor do you remember these transactions as well, I suppose, as in 1887? A.—No, of course the time is longer. Q.—How did you keep these papers which you had before the litigation commenced and through all those different 40 suits, do 3'ou remember? A.—They were generally filed. Q.—How did you file them? A.—Just done them up together like this (indicating) and tied them. Q.—Had you to go through all these papers for these different examinations to which Mr. Dickinson has referred? A.—I had to go through them all with the exception of the lot of the "Thornton." Q.—But in connection with that litigation had you not to go through those papers as well? A.—Not the "Thornton's" papers. Q.—You are positive about that? A.—Yes. Q.—How did these papers get mislaid? A.—I can't tell myself; I don't think they were opened; I think the whole lot were together. Q.—Until when? A.—I don't know when; they were twice taken charge of by the sheriff. Q.—Since the litigation and since 1887 the sheriff has been in possession of your office? A.—Since the litigation. Q.—And therefore you have not had absolute control over your papers since 1887? A.—Not all the time. Q.—You have no other explanation to offer for not being able to produce the papers in 1887? A.—Except in the "Thornton's" I can't understand it. Q.—In connection with memoranda and vouchers is it not a fact that you had opened these general charges which were subdivided by memoranda of your own as to the ships to which these things belonged? A.—Yes, some vouchers '*^s? 948 20 (J. D. Warren—Re-direct.) should be marked; if the whole A'oucher did not belong to that schooner I should mark the articles that did not. Q.—And did you as a matter of fact make memoranda of that kind on vouchers at that time? A.—I did all the time. Q.—State in your own language again how you prepared the statement at Ottawa; what kind of memoranda did you take to Ottawa? A.—When I went to Ottawa I had to 10 divide the different things the best I knew. I didn't have any books and didn't have any vouchers. Q-—Taking the items, is there much discrepancy between the total and your books? A.—I don't think it. Q-—But there would be a discrepancy as between the subheads? A.—Yes, there might be some, I don't think the discrepancy amounts to a great deal anyway. Q-—But the sum total would not vary much? A.—No, not much, there was some things I put in that account from memory that were not charged to the vessel that yeari Q.—You depended then on the bulk accounts and your memory at the time? A.—Yes, and the names of the people that the bills were from. Q.^You were examined in reference to the inventory of the "Thornton" taken by the United States authorities apparently on the 14th of August. Before answering, Mr. Dickinson had your attention been called to the entry in the log on the 7th of August, made by Guttormsen? A.—No, I think not. Q.—As a matter of fact, had you, before answering Mr. Dickinson, in court to-day, observed the entry in this log of the 7th of August, the inventory marked at the end of the log and referring back in terms to the 7th of August, where it appears that certain articles were taken from the schooner, for instance, 100 pounds of flour, 16 pounds of dried apples, 25 pounds of rice, 15 pounds of sugar, 69 pounds of beans, two boxes of bread and other articles for the use of the United States in transferring prisoners to San Francisco. Had you seen that before? A.—I may have seen it some time 40 ago. Q.—As a matter of fact, had you seen that before you came into court? A.—I think I had heard something about it. Mr. Dickinson:—That is a part of what is already in evidence, Sir Charles. 30 Sir C. H. Tupper:- so far as he knew. -Yes, but I asked him if that was right, SO 60 Q.—You told Mr. Dickinson, in connection with that, that you observed that according to the inventory taken by the United States, they found 100 pounds of lard. How much lard appears to have been charged to the "Thornton" on those books that you say were kept of your business in 1886? A.— I can only find 50 pounds Q.—And you mention bread. How much bread appears to have been charged in your book? A.—Six boxes of biscuit. Q.—Whereas some seven odd boxes appear in the two inventories there? A.—Yes, I believe so. Q.—Observing that, would you say that the books were carefully kept? A.—Well, I certainly believe that there was bread aboard there that was not entered. Q.—Have you any doubt about it? A.—I have no doubt about it. Q.—You were careful in regard to that part of your examination to sa.A'. that so far as you could see, nothing appeared to have been left out of the inventory of the 14th of August. I infer that what you meant was that you could not tell what had been counsumed by the crew or lost after you 20 949 (J. D. Warren—Be-direct. had sent these things on board, is that what you desired to intimate? A.—I couldn't state exactly what should have been aboard at that time. Q-—And from a general glance at the inventory it seemed to cover what ought to have been there at that time. A.— I think the most of the things should have been there if they were not. io Q.—You are merely giving your opinion in answer to the question? A.—Yes. Q.—You said, captain, that a statement was being prepared, as to the things that went on board, and you referred to the counsel for the Crown. Do you refer specifically to a statement being made from the books, or something else? Was there any statement ever prepared by anyone at the time that things went on the boat? A.—No, not at the time they went on the boat. Q.—Then you have reference only to the examination that had been made of the books by counsel, and for counsel? A. —Yes. Q.—You know of no formal statement for this court, no record? A.—No. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I will ask my learned friend, he examined very pointedly with regard to the receipts at Sitka. Would he be good enough to let me see those receipts at this stage, or does he wish to reserve them. Mr. Dickinson I—You must bear in mind, Sir Charles, that you have massed all the other Warren cases, five or six, that follow the "Thornton." I would prefer to reserve our own case until we get into it. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I mean with regard to the "Thornton" as my learned friend states, in connection with his vessel. If he has received other articles for which we are charging other than the chronometer and log, of course, I take it. Mr. Dickinson:—I have no receipts expressly for the 4° "Thornton." Q.—Have you looked for the'other letter from Gottormsen Avhich Mr. Dickinson asked you to produce? A.—This is it. (Producing letter.) 30 SO 60 The letter reads as follows: W. CLARK, Sitka, Alaska. Attorney and Counselor at Law and Notary Public. Capt. J. D. Warran, Victoria, B. C. Septbr 4th 1886. Dr Sir, In adition to my letter jesterda (wroght by Mr. Dingly) I must inform jou that I have made agreement with Mr. Clark (Attorny) to folpw the case up untill we get the best of it, so you understand to shute you self acording to hwat time you wil pay him the fee of $500.00. I got inventory list of evry thing as was onboard, the chronometer I was trying to get with me to Victoria but hear in Sitka as I got lukt up, the turned the cronometer and also my sextant over to the Marshal. Wen the time comes that I can come outh I can get thise things by svering that it is mine, of cose I can swere the sextant is mine, and if jou did give me as a precent the cronometer in May, I can then swer it is mine. I could make jou a precent of igain wen T~get it to Victoria. Well you understand bettre youself as hwath kine of paper you could send to me for to precent to the court to that effect. James Ogilvie is lost. Munroes tryal 950 (J. D. Warren—Re-direct. will come at Monday, also Carolenas. Capt. of Shr San Diago got 2 months and the mate 1 month, because he was intending to go to Bering Sea—Well I have no more to sye just now oneli I feel very miserable in faith, one day is longer than 2 weeks in Bering Sea. I remain yours obedient, (Sd.) H. GUTTORMSEN. io Letter received and marked "Exhibit 46, G.B. Claim No. Q.—Have you the letter to which this last letter refers, written by Mr. Diugly? A.—What is the elate of that one? Q.—September, 4th. A.—I think I have got a letter, signed by Mr. Dingly. Q.—This is the letter referred to, as the letter written by 20 30 40 50 60 Mr. Dinglv Q.—And amining.) A.—That's what I took it to be. is that Mr Yes. Guttormsen's signature? A.—(Ex- 1 lied the Albion Iron Works of business? A.—He made to' your expectation? A.— Letter marked No. 18 for identification. Q.—Have you been able to find any other letters bearing the captain's signature? A.—To the best of my knowledge that is all I ever saw. Q.—Then the two that have his signature that are in your possession, these are from Mr. Dingly, and they are not signed by Guttormsen? A.—-That is so. Q.—Who was Mr. Dingly, was he a friend of Mr. Clark's? A.—Clark & Dingly is the name of the firm, or Dingly & Clark or something. Q.—Now, you were asked in regard to the steam auxiliary. What speed could you drive your vessel at with that engine? A.—Well, between four and five knots. Q.—You spoke of Mr. Cowan. At that time was there a regular boiler works or engine business here, or was this special work? A.—What is ca was here then, too. Q.—Was Cowan in that line engines, he was in that line. Q.—Did the engine come up Yes, I think it did. Q.—He did the work satisfactorily? A.—Yes. Q.—Was that engine in good shape? A.—She was able to do that four or five knots in 1886; she was always able to do about that. Q,—Now, parts of different examinations of yours in litigation, which you have had with Mr. Boscowitz have been shown to you, and 3'ou were asked particularly regarding a statement made where you used the language: "I put the Thornton" I think at $4,000." What did you actually mean by that, Mr. Warren? A.—Well, as I said before, I must have had reference to security for him. Q.—As a matter of fact, have you not, on one or two occasions, put your various ships on a list in order to submit a proposition to Mr. Boscowitz for further advances? A.—For getting advances. Q.—And did you intend to represent to him the cost of the vessel, or what the cash value would be in case of sale under security, which? A.—No, my intention was not to represent the cost of the vessels, but to show him that he would be safe in loaning that amount of money on them. Q.—In those statements to which reference was generally made were not the other vessels, say the "Grace," put at a small figure as well? A.—Yes, much smaller than their cost. 951 (J. D. Warren—Re-direct. io 20 30 Q.—She cost you about $16,000, did s $16,000. Q.—She was a steamer of what tonnaj 150 tons of coal. Q.—She cost you $16,000. Do you happen to remember what you put her down for when borrowing money from Mr. Boscowitz? A.—Ten or twelve thousand dollars, I think. Something like that.. Q.—So that in these statements of assets, you were not putting what you would call as their real value, but their value for safe security? A.—Yes, when I put them down less than the cost. Q.—As a matter of fact, if these papers were produced from the court, would they not show various values even in regard to the "Thornton," one time at $3,000, another at $5,- 000 and another at $4,000? A.—Yes, you will find all these different statements. Q.—You were asked in regard to the money advanced on that vessel; that was paid off, was it not? A.—The "Thornton's was paid off; yes. Q.—Now in regard to Mr. Cooper. He is your brother-in- law, is he not? A.—Yes. Q.—He has been living in San FranciscO? A.—Yes. Q.—As a matter of fact, had he anything to do at any time with the "Thornton"? A.—Not with the "Thornton," no. Q.—The same to which you refer, had that anything to do with the "Thornton"? A.—No. Q.—That related to other vessels in the fleet? A.—Other vessels. Q.—When you speak of bidding them in a friendly way you referred to the other vessels of your fleet, which you named, and not the "Thornton"? A.—No, the "Thornton" was seized and it didn't matter. Q.—At that time she was not in your possession at all, but was actually under seizure? A.—Not in my possession. Q.—I want you to explain why these vessels in that sale were knocked down at a nominal sum? A.—Well, they Avere put up for the purpose of transferring the control. Q.—But as a matter of fact, were they not all mortgaged 1 A.—They were all mortgaged. Q.—They were put up under control? A.—They were mortgaged for a good deal more money, my liabilities were reduced to" $35,000 at that time, and these vessels were put up, bought in in that wa3', and then I gave mortgages to cover the indebtedness. Q.—Were they put up free from the mortgages? Was any arrangement made by. which they should be free from the mortgages? Would a purchaser take them with the mortgage? A.—No, it was all clear of the mortgage, sold undei the mortgage. Q.—Who arranged the sale at the time, did the mortgagee immediately have those mortgages re-registered? A.—This new one»s? Q.— Yes. A.—Oh, yes. Q—So that the mortgagee had his mortgage interest 60 fore and after that sale? A.—Yes. Q.—Was not that understood at the time? was understood. Q.—Who were at the sale? A.—Well, I nie;mber, there Avasn't many there at any rate. Q.—You stated there was a ioss on the "Thornton"' when yon Avere being cross-examined in *.ome previous litigation, and you attempted to give an explanation as to what you referred. Will you please state, first of all, in 1886, what you 4° SO -Yes. that can hardly iv- 1*5*- IO 20 30 40 50 60 952 (J. D. Warren—Re-direct.) cleared on that fleet, notwithstanding the seizure? A.— Since the noon hour I went and took from the books— y.—I only want the bulk sum? A.—On the; other vessels, leaving the "Thornton" out and the few skins we benight. $21,- 982.43 was our profits, and on the "Thornton'' outfit we lost £4,100 48. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— How many boats, were there in the whole fleet? Witness:—There were six. The Commissioner ' on the part of the United States:— How many boats, I mean hunting boats? ' Witness:—I think about 10 white boats. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Figure them carefully, I want to know. Witness:—Well, your Honour, these vessels on the coast used to carry sometimes as high as 20 canoes on a vessel. I can give the amount of canoes on the vessels to Behring Sea. I make it ten boats in Behring Sea and 38 canoes, and on the coast I should suppose there would be in the neighborhood of 30 more canoes. Sir C. H. Tupper:—You have given an answer about the four thousand and odd dollars loss, what do you mean by that loss; had that anything to do with the cost of the vessels? Witness:—The vessel herself was not taken into calculation at all nor the values of any of the vessels, only the workings of the business. y.—You were examined further as. to your answers in regard to the construction of a charter and object of the charter being taken by someone else after the assignment of your vessels, as a matter of fact, all this litigation ended in a decree, did it not? A.—Yes. y.—And you did not succeed in having your interpretation of your relations with Mr. Boscowitz endorsed by the court? A.—No. y.—Their construction of your relations was different than your own? A.—Yes, quite different. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What Avas the date of this assignment that has been spoken of? Sir C. H. Tupper:—I think 1885. Witness:—In the fall of 1885. y.—The assignment to which reference has been made was in 1885? A.—1885. y.—You were not, hoAvever, the registered owner of the vessels? A,—Yes, y.—Mr. Griffiths was the assignee, what was his name? A.—John Griffiths. Mr. Dickinson:—John H. Griffiths, I think. Sir C. H. Tupper:—1 shall purposely abstain from going into the questions, some of which were touched on by my learned friend at this stage. I think it better to carry out the original method in which Ave proposed to put our case, and leave the questions of interest and ownership and that kind of thing until its proper order in rebuttal. 20 953 (J. D. Warren—Ee-cross.) Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: y.—In answer to the court you told the profits, and I understood you to say it was profits of the business of Behring Sea? A.—Not altogether—the season. Q.—The coast catch and everything else makes up these profits which you have stated? A.—Yes, • Q.—Did you buy this log for the "Thornton. The original IO blank book? A.—I can hardly say; very likely, I couldn't say positively. Q.—Did you furnish the same to your other boats? A.- I couldn't really say, I expected it would be used by them as a part of their supplies. Q.—Do you not remember whether you furnished this particular log, published by Imray & Son, London? A.—I don't remember the circumstance. Q.—Before we lay aside the log, I wish to identify certain parts in it so that there shall be no misapprehension. 1 find in that log three loose sheets, do you know where they came from? A.—Don't it show where they came out of the log? Q.—I want to show that there were, in the log book, three loose sheets? A.—I see they are there. Q.—Did you get the book in this condition at Sitka ? A.— With them three loose leaves? Q.—Did you get the book in the condition the writing is now in, at Sitka? A.—Oh, yes, there hasn't been any change in it to my knoAvledge. 30 Q.—And I. have made no mistake in your testimony that the handAvriting on the pages marked, "J. C. C. December 29th, 1896, to J. C. C. December 29th, 1896" are in your captain's handwriting? You so said before? A.—(Examining) I took it to be his writing. Q.—And the reference back on the last page, "See in remarks for August 7th," is that his handwriting? A.—I ain't so sure of that. Q.—Turning back to August 7th, is that in his handwriting the regular log of August 7th? A.—I think that is. (Ex- 4 amining) Including the words in brackets on the same day, first page of August 7th, "as mentioned below." Q.—You do not know of any other writing in this book except his? A.—No, I have no knowledge of anybody else writing anything in it whatever. Mr. Dickinson:—This book is only marked for identification. Is it under the rule deposited in the archives? The Commissioner on theu part of the United States:—If 50 marked only for identification, it is retained by counsel, unless otheurwise ordered. Mr. Dickinson:—I desire as a part of the cross-examination to put this book in the archives of the Commission. Book received and marked "Exhibit No. 47, G. B., Claim No. 2." Q.—You have no doubt that Exhibit 46 is in the captain's handwriting, have you? A.—(Examining) No, I believe that 60 is his writing. Q.—You haA'e no doubt of it, have you? A.—No. Q.—And that his signature appears on "No. 15 for identification?" A.—That is right. Mr. Dickinson:—I would like to have these letters in evidence,' one is marked for identification. Sir C. H. Tupper:—T will put them in. 954 (J. D. Warren—Re-cross—Re-direct.) y.—i would like to know, Captain Lewis' other name v surveyed the "Thornton" in 1885? A.—I don't know a e who s I know his second name. Q.—You had him here as a witness? A.—He was here this morning. Q.—Is he the man who surveyed the boat? A.—That is the man? io y.—How long was this fleet on the west coast, consisting of the "Thornton," the "Dolphin," the 'Anna Beck," the "Grace," the "Rustler" and "Sayward"? A.—In which year? Q.—In 1886. A.—About, the middle of May they were prepared to go north, but the "Rustler" stayed later, she went later on the coast. Q.—But how long were the3' on the coast before entering Behring Sea? A.—They went into Behring Sea in May. That would be perhaps two months sealing on the coast. 20 Q.—They started out in February, did they not? A.—They started somewhere about the 1st of March—the latter part of February perhaps. Q.—Either in February or March they went out for the coast sealing, the fleet of six? A.-—Yes, I think so. Q.—And the "Rustler" remained longer on the coast and entered Behring Sea how late? A.—She didn't go into the Sea she remained sealing along the coast, she remained longer on account of not going into Behring Sea. Q.—The catch of. the "Thornton" made on the coast is esti- 30 mated in this account of profits between you and Boscowitz? A.—Yes. Q.—You said to the learned Commissioners that you had but 26 boats all told, I think? A.—About 10 white boats and 38 canoes, I think I said for Behring Sea, and perhaps about 30 more cane>es on the coast. Q.—Thirty extra to the 38? A.—Yes. Q.—Did that include the "Thornton's" boats? A.—The "Thornton didn't seal with boats. 4° The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I asked for it aside from the "Thornton." Q.—Hoav many canoes had the "Thornton" on the coast? A.—I cannot say positive, I suppose she would have from 10 to 15 wherever she could get them. Q.—That is in addition to what you gave the court, is it not? A.—Yes, I Mud of roughed it on the coast, I cannot tell any more than I would know they would take them if they could get them. 50 Q.—That Avould make 78 canoes and 10 boats? A.—Well, the "Thornton" did not have boats on the coast, and I suppose likely there would be rather more canoes than I figured on because she would get canoes on the coast? I suppose there would be in the neighborhood of 70 or 80 canoes or along there. Q.—And 10 boats? A.—No, there would not be only four or five while on the coast. Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper. 60 Q.—What was the flag the "Thornton" carried mentioned in the inventory? A.—The English flag. Q.—I omitted to ask you about the value of the fur seal skins in 1887—we have evidence as to their value in 1886. Can you tell us what the skins of the Behring Sea catch went for in Victoria in 1887? A.—I do not think I can tell you right off-hand any more than roughly: In 1887 it was about $6.75 at a rough calculation, and, in fact, I have not any returns of them yet. 955 (Discussion.) The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—A remark between Sir Charles Tupper and Mr. Dickinson led me to think that there is some misunderstanding somewhere. In the proceedings all along, I understood that after counsel for Her Majesty put in the registry of any vessel to prove that she was a British vessel, that would make out a prima facie case for the whole vessel, and then, if there was American io citizenship claimed they would be entitled to rebut. That has been my understanding. Mr. Peters:—I do not think that there is any misunderstanding about it, I do not think that Mr. Dickinson and' I misunderstand each other. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I did not quite understand the remarks make by counsel, but I thought from them there might be some misunderstanding. It does seem to me that the record ought to contain a certified 20 copy of the registry for every one of these vessels. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I have it here, in the case of the "Thornton." Mr. Peters:—Perhaps the substance of the R be sufficient. - The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It might be sufficient for us, but while we hope that this Avill not ,n o° beyond us, yet it may. Of course we all know that the'flag •* alone does not prove the nationality of a vessel. Mr. Perters:—We have, as a matter of fact, certifletl copies of the record of these vessels from the first time they were registered in Victoria until the present time. Sir C. H. Tupper:—This might be an opportune time to put in to the Record the registry of the "Thornton." Mr. Peters:—We are in this position, the question of foreign 40 OAvnership may become a very important one in this case, and we do not intend, in the beginning of the case, to make our complete proof; we look upon it as a matter in which it may be necessary for us to rebut, and we must not be understood as putting in all our evidence on this question; we may have to make rebuttal eA'idence. That has been my understanding all through. Mr. Dickinson:—And ours. 50 The Commissioner on the part if the United States:—I conceive that the Commissioners have nothing whatever to do with the question of ownership except so far as it is raised in the manner in Avhich Mr. Dickinson raises it in his pleadings. We have no question to settle as between British ownersl Mr. Dickinson:—Your Honour on refreshing your mind from the Convention, I think will see you must find that there is a private claim. go The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I mean as between British owners. Mr. Dickinson:—Your Honour is quite correct in that. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you think that we are bound to find as to each owner? Mr. Dickinson:—I think you have to find, under the Convention, that this a private claim of owners. 956" io s2©: (Discussion.) The Commissioner i on the part of the United States:—I understand that, but do you think that we have to find as to the rights of each person interested in each vessel. Suppose that we are satisfied that a vessel belongs to British owners and that the claims are purely private, are any of the counsel of the opinion that we have also to determine the rights between the private owners? Mr. Dickinson:—No, your Honour, I do not think that you will have to go into the question between Boscowitz and Warren, for instance, to settle the dispute between them. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I tender in evidence the Register of the "Thornton." Received and marked "Exhibit 48, G. B., Claim No. 2." Sir C. H. Tupper:—I beg to present a certificate of the survey of the "Thornton" in connection with the reduction of the tonnage after she was made a steamer; this shows how the registered tonnage of 22.30 is reached. Received and marked "Exhibit 49, G. B., Claim No. 2." Sir C. H. Tupper:—I beg to present the paper marked, "17 for identification," which was made the basis of the examination of the last witness. Mr. Dickinson:—We- objee-t most decidedly to an ex parte claim made up by Captain Warren in Ottawa. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Were not these papers laid before the Paris Arbitration, and are they not by the Treaty made open to us? Mr. Dickinson:—Even suppose they are. Your Honours must bear in mind that, owing to the difficulties before the Paris Tribunal of getting at the facts upon the conflict of witnesses, this very Commission was appointed to hear the oral testimony. I need not go over the whole ground of argu- 4° ment again in the matter. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do not we take cognizance of them whether they are put in here or not? Mr. Dickinson:—It is before the Tribunal, but we object most emphatie*ally to the introduction of it as special evidence before this Tribunal on the issues. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I tender this for what it is worth, and 5° of course, I appreciate the force of my learned friend's objection. There may be a very great difference of opinion as to its particular value, but the papers may be received, subject to the objection. 30 The Commissioner on the part of what principle? Her Majesty:—Upon Sir C. H. Tupper:—I will explain. It seems to me that it would be well to remember how this Commission was consti- 60 tuted, and the connection between this enquiry and the en quiry at Paris. No one ever thought of raising any objectiem to that document being made the very basis of the claim in connection with the "Thornton." It was a document communicated formally by the British Government to the United States Government. It was a claim made before the Arbitrators at Paris and submitted to them. It formed the basis for the various kinds of evidence taken on the different suits, and laid before the Paris Arbitrators. It was in evidence be- IO 20 30 957 (Discussion.) fore the Arbitrators at Paris who had jurisdiction to go into it—into every fact and item of it, just as well as the present Commissioners. It is true that they were limited in regard to their finding, but they could have been asked—and if asked they would have been bound under the term of the Treaty to find, were the facts correct as set out by Captain Warren. It was only left in regard to the amount to the Governments afterwards to arrange as to the liability to pay that amount. The Tribunal at Paris not only had jurisdiction to enquire as to whether these facts were true, and as to whether a certain loss did occur, but, under the terms of the Treaty, they would have been bound to deal with the subject. For convenience, and by the consent of the two Governments, at Paris further proceedings upon such questions were stayed until negotiations took place between the two Governments; these negotiations have taken place, and the only difference quoad this particular matter, and the functions of this Tribunal are two: The first is as to the introduction of evidence to guide the Commission in the assessment of damages; and the second, as to the functions of this Tribunal in actually fineling the liability and imposing the liability on the Government of the United States. But in regard to the investigation, the only different language which is used in this Convention and in the first Treaty occurs in connection with the words "suitable, authentic testimony." There is not, so far as I know, the record of a case before, or since the Geneva* award, where in an assessment, or investigation of this kind, a paper of that character has been excluded from consideration of the Tribunal. As a matter of fact it was before the Tribunal at Paris, and that Tribunal sent to this adjourned Tribunal these papers, which might receive and discard papers which they considered as worthless, as the Tribunal at Paris might have done when it came to the question of testimony. But here we have a statement made by the witness as to what he did, which might be received by any one as entirely true, Adz., that at the time he prepared the claim with regard to a matter which occurred ten years ago the facts were fully in his mind at that time when he did prepare this formal statement of the claim' which he wished to press upon his Government. This paper was made the foundation of the examination, and he had to submit, and did submit, to a very searching cross-examination upon that ex parte affidavit made nearly ten years ago. It is of course for the Commis- 50 sioners to decide how he came out of that or what benefit insofar as this claim is concerned, can be derived from anything he has sworn to in this case. This document was before the Tribunal at Paris, and to exclude it for what it is worth will be, I think, to unduly embarass the presentation of this claim. If we were proceeding before an ordinary Tribunal, it is clear that we would have all the responsibility that attaches to the claimant on account of the delay, but, as has been pointed out on more than one occasion in the course of this investigation, through no fault of the cliamant's time has robbed him of many documents, and much evidence that ten years ago could have been easily produced, and which would have shortened the proceedings. Therefore, I argue that some latitude in the presentation of this case should be given. I think it is a paper that the Commissioners should carefully consider as bearing on the case. It is in the printed Record, and must be before them, and, being produced here in connection with 40 60 958 io 20 3° (Discussion.) the testimony of the witness, it* makes his whole statement, at least, more intelligible. I can understand my learned friend making this objection the ground of serious argument at the end of the enquiry, but I think at this time, the paper might be admitted for what it is worth, and the argument as to the general effect of Captain Warren's evidence considered when the time comes for reaching a decision. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What part of it do y'ou wish to refer to, and for what pur-' pose? Sir C. H. Tupper:—For this purpose, right or wrong as I submit, in the interest of the case, we made this paper the basis of the examination. If we had adopted the more legal circumstance of producing the books, the proceedings would have taken a greater length of time. He was examined on the statement of claim for the sake of convenience, he has explained how it was made. We could have gone through all the various books, but we thought it better to- save time to pursue this course, and Mr. Warren was submitted to a reaching and searching cross-examination at the hands of the representatives of the United States. Mr. Dickinson:—I will state my views very compactly and take up as little time as possible. The analogy is similar to this: That the claimant may, upon the trial of his cause, read his own declaration at law or that a complainant, in equity, may on the hearing of a cause read his own bill of complaint in evidence. A more apt analogy is, that a plaintiff who has commenced his suit by mesne process of attachment, may read on the trial of the case his affidavit in evidence for attachment, or a complainant in a suit of equity, who has asked preliminary injunction and filed affidavits, may, in order to get his process of injunction read his affidavit on which he obtained the injunction in the first instance. There is no difference between the two. The explanation that time has elapsed can cut no figure. In no case would the affidavit, or statement, of the plaintiff, made out of court, and off the stand, be received as suitable and authentic testimony anywhere. Next I beg to suggest that the Paris Tribunal had no power to summon Avitnesses before it, hence it passed upon certain great facts only. It could find by latitude and longitude where certain seizures were made on certain undisputed 5° facts. It found that the United States Government in seizing certain schooners seized them beyond the jurisdiction of the Government of the United States, and it found that the owners be compensated if they were the Paris Tribunal got to the or values, that Tribunal said, we as to the amount of the claims, and the questions of law as to the probable catch, and all the matters that are presented go —for example in the statement of J. D. Warren—for further negotiation between the Governments. They had no power to summon witnesses or listen to testimony, and they left it for negotiations betAveen the Governments. This Convention is the sequel. The Governments came together in accordance with the recommendations of the Paris Tribunal, and they saw that they could not pass upon these facts in issue. Then the Governments considered what should be done. They decided that they would organize a court with power to 40 of these vessels should British subjects. When question of the amount must leave these questions 959 io (Discussion.) summon witnesses; they decided that they would send that court, composed of the Commissioners of both countries, to the source of testimony, and on these questions that have troubled the Paris Tribunal, and as to which there was no reconciling the differences they said: We will have evidence taken—autheniii evidence—as to them. They said, for instance, em J. D. Warren's statement as here presented, if he makes a claim, J. D. Warren may be put upon the stand—as he has been put here—examined and cross-examined, and that is what we are here for. The only other point raised by my learned friend is as to lapse of time. Well, the absence of time never permitted a witness upon the stand to put in his testimony in chief any document that he had made himself, except for the purpose of refreshing his memory, and when we come to the argument, I shall argue with great confidence that. Captain Warren upon the stand has said that every one of the vouch- 20 ers, and all the testimony in regard to the supplies contained in this statement, are in those books'and were drawn from his bc-oks when he prepared that statement and that the books are here in his possession now. How long would it have taken to bring this source of fair, and competent, and suitable testimony before this Tribunal? Warren could go into the office of an accountant, or into the office of my learned friends, and could have, very easily, made out a statement from the books before him, upon which he might have refreshed his memory and been cross- examined. I submit that this statement of his claim filed before the Paris Tribunal, because of the difficulties arising out of it, ought not to be received by this court. Your Honours are here to listen to the testimony of the man who filed that statement; we have his testimony before us, and this should not be offered as suitable, authentic evidence on this issue. 30 40 Sir C. H. Tupper:—I wish to call the attention of the Commissioners to a point material to the observation of my learned friend as well as to this motion. Article 8 of the main Treaty provides as follows: Article:—VIII—The high contracting parties having found themselves unable to agree upon a reference which shall include the question of the liability of each for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the other, or by its citizens, in connection with the claims presented and urged by it; and, being solicitous that this subordinate question should not interrupt or longer delay the submission and determination of 5° the main questions, do agree that either may submit to the arbitrators any question of fact involved in said claims and ask for a finding thereon, the question of the liability of either government upon the facts found to be the subject of further negotiation. The question of fact in regard to this claim was the same question which is now before this high Commission: That question of fact was submitted, and the arbitrators, in regard to that, found certain other facts, and there was an adjournment, as I say, over to this investigation. They left it for negotiation and that negotiation did take place. I submit that my argument is sound, that there was an adjournment of the enquiry, practically, from Paris to Victoria, That document relates to this very question now before us. I frankly state, in reply to my learned friend, that the books to which he has referred, and which are available to Mr. Warren, will be gone through from cover to cover in four or five cases to follow; There is nothing on our part to conceal 60 96c ill 1 iM 10 20 (Discussion.) about it. Our reason for not taking whatever risk there might be as to not producing them in this case relates to the subject of the provisioning of this vessel. We began the case with the admission that that was in our opinion immaterial. It relates to a second supply of provisions—we decided to face that difficulty irrespective of the books or anything else, and we frankly admitted that the "Thornton" was not fully provisioned, but arrangements were made by which she could buy further provisions and have carried out, effectively, her season's Avork had she not been interfered with. The Commissioner on the.part of Her Majesty:—It sometimes happens that matters of proof are connected with statments under oath in such a way as that the statements under oath are admissible, not as evidence proper, but is being a part of the acts or facts which are necessary to be shown. As, for instance, in the case of preliminary proofs in a claim unde^r an insurance policy. Again the treaty refers to certain claims, and it might seem as if it would be open to us to take cognizance of what these claims were, so as to have before us that which the parties to the treaty may have had in contemplation. It is another question, however, whether anything so offered could be considered as strictly a matter of substantive proof. While not laying down any general rule covering all cases, we think that in the present case, there is no reason 30 Avhy Captain Warren might not be able to make up his accounts now, substantially, as well as them. We do not say that, if a case were to arise where the witness could not be reached, or where there were insuperable difficulties in the way of his coming at the facts, we might be disposed to allow such affidavits to go in as substantive proof. The present is not, it appears to us, such a case, and while recognizing the weight of your argument, Sir Charles, we believe, that in this case, we should confine you to the statements on oath of Captain Warren as produced before us. Sir C. H. Tupper:—Am I to understand that this document cannot be referred to when counsel are arguing on the evidence? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It could not be referred to as proof of the fact. Sir C. H. Tupper:—But in order to understand the eridence. It was constantly referred to by myself, and by my learned friend opposite. 50 ** The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty*:—To the extent that the witness was cross-examined upon it, it becomes part of the proof in this case, and to the extent that anrthing in it limits or qualifies a part referred to in cross-examination—to that extent it would, under the ordinary rules, be capable of being referred to. Sir C. H. Tupper:—Then I understand that while we can- not rely upon what is stated in the affidavit as substantive 6° proof, the examination of Mr. Warren may be considered as read in the affidavit, or the affidavit into the evidence, in order to follow that evidence. Otherwise I do not exactly see how the examination can be understood. He was cross-examined at great length upon that statement. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—I think it Avill be found possible to understand his evidence without reading in the affidavit. 40 Sir C. H. Tupper:—May that document not be filed as an exhibit? The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—We do not say anything to the contrary of that, so far. I have already said that I think the commissioners may look at it, in order to see what is the claim which really was made 1)3' the parties, if an3' question should arise with reference to thai. I presume there will be no question that a claim was made on the part of 20 Captain Warren. If any objection should arise in that connection, it would be pertinent for us to look at the claim as filed. Sir C. H. Tupper:—Before asking it to be filed as an exhibit I would tender it in evidence on the ground that it is material to show the date of the formal presentation of this claim in connection with the question of interest. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—Is there any question as to when the claim was made? Mr. Dickinson:—Not the slightest, Your Lordship. Sir C. H. Tupper:—There apparently is not now, but there might be. The Commissioner on the part or Her Majesty:—If it is necessary to refer to that claim for the purpose of founding an argument respecting the claim for interest, I do not suppose there would be any objection at all to your referring to it. Sir C. H. Tupper:—May it be filed now as an exhibit? Mr. Dickinson:—I desire to suggest in this connection the proposition, namely, that there is a possibility—and I hope a verv reniote possibility—of this matter going to the umpire; if this should be certified as part of the testimony taken, it would be somewhat confusing. he Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty.:—We think that inasmuch as the Treaty referred to the claims, it is open to the parties to have brought before us the definite claim that was made. Mr. Dickinson:—To be sure. he Commissioner on the part of Her Majest3*:—And that not as a matter of evidence, but as a matter of proceeding. Mr. Dickinson:—I quite understand your Lordship's ruling, and, understanding it, I made my suggestion in reply to the proposition of Sir Chas. Tupper to put this in as an exhibit; to that I made the remarks I did opposing that motion. Sir C. H. Tupper:—That would be my to file it as an exhibit. round for aslcin; The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—It might be filed as a separate exhibit, but not as an exhibit of matters put in evidence. It might go in as an exhibit under a different head, say, of claims filed. 61 g6i (Discussion.) Sir C. H. Tupper:—As my learned friend says, we must contemplate the possibility of an umpire. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—You have to contemplate that all along. Sir C. H. Ti That pparent to any mind. io l upper :- The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—It is legal possibility. Sir C. H. Tupper:—Exactly, and so far as possible there ought to be before the mind of. the umpire what there .was before the commissioners. It is not an unusual thing for the umpire to sit with the original commissioners in these matters. That has been done heretofore in similar cases. It seems to me, therefore, that as long as your Honours, as the Commissioners present, have not discarded this very evidence as substantive evidence, and as entitled to go on the notes; 20 then, looking towards the possibility of these matters coming' de novo before one who is not sitting with you, this document ought to be preserved, and ought to be in proper hands for reference in case it should ultimately become necessary for reference. Reference to it may be necessary for the purpose of making the evidence given intelligible. Mr. Dickinson:—The proposition has not been made in any - other case to get a similar document on the record as bearing on the issue. The statement of claim as to the other ships 30 were all prepared by Mr. Warren, but yet there was no motion made to have them go on the record. It is not necessary to file this to show what the claim was. My learned friends have filed a declaration in their statement of claim before this Tribunal, and it is unnecessary to supplement the claim they haA'e filed because, presumedly they filed everything which they desire to state in connection with this claim. I submit that it is not authentic and suitable testimony. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—My learn- 40 ed colleague has mentioned a mode of dealing with this matter. We have in certain cases made reference to matters which were before the-Tribunal at Paris, by mentioning the American reprint without having it printed as part of our proceedings. In this case such course might be followed. Sir C. H. Tupper:—In examining Captain Warren, in order to save time, I asked him to look at this document marked 17 for identification and then examined him in regard to certain figures in that. The notes will show the cross-examination 50 by Mr. Dickinson who asked him: "Now, with reference to this document shown you, and by counsel on the other side," and so on. I submit that the evidence will not be intelligible unless this document is put in. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majest3r:—If it were used in that way by you, and if Mr. Dickinson cross-examined upon it in the same manner, it might be necessary to refer to the notes in extenso before we could intelligently deal with it. I would suggest that we wait until we get the notes of 60 the proceedings to-morrow and see if they are not intelligible. Mr. Dickinson:—In my learned friend's heroic struggle to put Captain J. D. Warren's statement on this record to be referred to by some one as authentic testimony, he has stated that I referred to it on cross-examination. I did not have it in in.v hands, nor did I speak of it at all, except in two instances, and then I referred to the American Re-print and asked him; "Did you stay it would cost $6,000 to get the 963 (Discussion. W. Sleightholme.) 'Thornton' off the beach as referred to here," and he said, "I did." The next question was a specific question and he said, "I made such a statement," and that closed my examination in that respect. Sir C. H. Tupper:—The notes will show. That is the recollection of my learned friend, but my recollection is different (O from his, nor would I like to be cross-examined as to it. If my friend has not cross-examined on the document my position is much weaker than I thought it was. Mr. Dickinson:—I never took the document out of your hands at all. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I would suggest that this matter may wait until the morning when we see the notes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I 20 wish to ask counsel a question: While we are not bound by the strict rules of common law, yet we are limited to "suitable authentic testimony. As suggested by my learned colleague, there might be circumstances under which we would admit a paper like that; cannot counsel agree as to this document? Sir C. H. Tupper:—It is not worth the snap of a finger so far as any statement in it be3'ond this is concerned. The matter which I considered of importance was, that having used that statement, whether right or wrong, as the basis of examination, I thought it should be on the record to explain the evidence. I did not consider it of any importance whether Captain Warren swore this, that or the other, but I did consider of importance the appendices or exhibits attached to the original claim, and in which the items appear. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— What consequence is it as to what sort of supplies went on board the vessel when she was furnished? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Very little importance at all, but the statement of the witness Avithout these incidents in that affidavit will be exceedingly difficult to understand or discuss. The Commissioner on the -part of the United States:— As the parties agree substantially as to what was aboard at the time of seizure, what consequence is it what provisions Avent on board the vessel when she was fitted out? Sir C. H. Tupper:—I am confident it will be so found. I 5° may inform m3' learned friend that I was not relying upon what Captain Warreh declared in the affidavit, but to the exhibits attached to that affidavit and on which, for convenience, I base my examination. The Commissioners rose at 5 o'clock- 3o 40 Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, between 60 Great Britain and the United States of America. Chambers of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 30, 1896. At 10:30 a.am. the Commissioners took their seats. The case of the "Thornotn" was resumed. William Sleightholme was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and duly sworn: 9°4 (William Sleightholme—Direct.) Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—What is your age Mr. Sleightholme? A.—65 sir. Q.—You were born in England,. I believe? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—When did you leave England? A.—I left England last in 1852. Q.—What occupation did you follow? A.—Used to follow going to sea as ship carpenter in the early days, to Q.—Then you were apprenticed to the carpentry trade first? A,—Yes, sir. Q.—And followed the line of ship carpentry? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—How long did you go to sea as a ship carpenter? A.— I think about seven, perhaps eight years. Q.—And you settled down in Victoria after having followed that line at sea? A.—I made one voyage, after I came here, to China. Q.—About what time did you come to Victoria? A.—I 20 come to Victoria in 1864. Q.—And what have you been doing since then? A.— Working as a ship carpenter. Q.—You have worked upon schooners and vessels generally? A.—All kinds of vesels. Q.—Had you anything to do with the "Thornton?" A.— Yes, sir. Q.—What had you to do with her? A.—I worked upon her for over 20 years, off and on. - Q.—Do you remember the time she was rebuilt? A.—Yes, 3 sir. Q.—You worked upon her then? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you remember the time she was coppered? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—Had you anything to do with that? A.—Yes, sir, me and Cook coppered her. Q.—What work did you do on her as well? A.—After she was launched I worked around the deck and fitted her cabins —fitted her for sea. - 40 Q.—You saw her then, when she was ready for sea? A.— Oh, yes, sir. Q.—Was that before she had the machinery in her? A.— That was before she had machinery in her, yes, sir. q,—what did you value her in Victoria before she had her machinery put In? A.—About $5,000. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Sir Charles, have you any objection to asking whether he means value or cost? This class of witnesses, I find, generally mean 50 cost when they say value. Q.—When yon speak of value do 30U refer to what it would cost to build a ship or a ship of her style? A.—I speak of Avhat she cost. Q.—Well, that being so, Iraving regard to the cost of work at that time, could you have turned out a ship of her style and capacity for less money? A.—No, sir, she would cost ^fpore. Q.—What do 3'ou mean by that? A.—It would have cost 00 more to build her complete from the beginning here than it Avould cost to rebuild her as he was done. Q.—Whs^^^St had her age upon her at tin time that she was rebuilt? A.—She was very sound for her age, her old frame was A'ery strong and hard, the natural crooks were all oak. Q.—After she had her machinery put in her did you work on her? A.—Yes, sir, IO 20 30 40 50 60 (William Sle itholme—Direct—Cross.) the "Thornton" as she stood in 1886? Q.—Do you remember A.—Yes, sir.. Q.—What would you say her fair value would be in that year, machinery and all? A.—Perhaps something over $7, 000. Q.—Were you on her in that year? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—On board of her? A.—Whenever there was anything to do I was generally called on to do it. Q.—Could you tell me, generally, the description of the boiler? A.—I don't know much about machinery; I don't profess to know about that. Q.—What size was it, do you remember? A.—I couldn't tell you I couldn't say anything about the machinery. Q.—You cannot describe it? A.—No, sir, not more than I recollect asking the man that manufactured it, I asked him what the value of it was. Q.—Where abouts was the machinery, did it take up much of the ship? A.—No, it didn't take up a great deal. Q.—Have you ever been on the vessel when she was under steam? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—And did her machinery work well ? machinery was first-class machinery. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—I suppose you are a machinest as well? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you ever examine any machinery? A.—No, sir, I don't know much about it. Q.—You do not know anything about it? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Whenever you have worked on her, you have done so as a laborer, have you not? A.—Ship carpenter. Q.—Never as a contractor or boss? A.—No-, sir, I never had no contract on her. Q.—By day's work? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you never have w.orked in any other way, have you, except by day's work? A.—No, sir, not on that vessel. Q.—Did you ever build a vessel yourself? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did yon ever work on the construction of a vessel? A. Yes, sir. , Q.—As a day laborer, only? A.—Only. Q.—And did you ever have anything to do with the purchase of materials to put into a vessel? A.—Only the masts. Q.—You have bought masts yourself? A.—I have contracted for making masts. Q.—But you never purchased the timbers and the necessary material to build a ship? A.—No, sir. Q.—And what is your business now? A.—Follow ship carpentering. Q.—You follow ship carpentering hy day's work as you always have all your life? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Of course you have never bought or sold a ship? A.— No, sir. Q.—And have followed your work day by day constantly for many, many years? A.—All my life. Q.—Working about every day? A.—Fifty years. Q.—About every day except Sundays? A.—Yes, sir. Witness not further examined. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I would like to refer, if the Commission- ers please, to the report of A. W. Lavender, who was Assistant Treasury Agent of the United States Government to the Chief Treasury Agent, March 19, 1890, as to the value of the "Thornton," found at page 738, Volume 5, American Re- Print, as follows: 966 20 (Documentary Evidence.) "Ounalaska, March 19, 1890. "Charles J. Goff, Esq., Chief Treasury Agent, Seal Islands. "My Dear Sir,—I am in receipt of yours of this date, asking me to A'isit the condemned schooners now lying near the head of this harbour, and to make 3'ou a report as to the value of each one when uew, also to the present condition and value of each one as they now remain; and, in reply to same, I will 10 say, that upon receipt of yours of even date, I Avent at once on board the steam schooner "Thornton," of Victoria, British Columbia, and found her to be a small steam schooner, of about 45 tons measurement, built of soft wood, me>stly Oregon pine, her engines about eight horse power, her bottom yellow- metalled; all her running gear was down in her hold among iron rust and dirty water, and of no value whatever. I did not find any sails on board, her anchors and chains are both attached to her, but are very light and rusty, most of her small spars are gone. I should think, when new, that $7,000 would be a fair price for her, including her engines and all other accoutrements ready for sea. Her present value is nothing more than her old rigging and metal would sell for, less freight and expenses, and $200 would be a good price for lier." I would like to refer also to a certificate of the Secretary of the Treasury, dated Juty 30, 1892, found in Volume 2, Appendix 1, of the case of the United States, pages 108 and 109, as follows: "Pursuant to section 882 of the Revised Statutes, I hereby certify that the annexed table is a correct statement of the vessels seized in Behring Sea by the officers of the United States pursuant to instructions of this Department. "In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the Treasury Department to be affixed, on the day and year first above written. Charles Foster, Secretary of the Treasury." The reference to the ships mentioned by that certificate that I would like to make is at the top of page 109, setting out the number of vessels seized by the revenue steamer "Corwin," Captain C. A. Abby, commanding: Date of seizure, nationality, rig, name, latitude and longitude, section of Revised Statutes under which seized, number of skins. The second in that list is the British schooner "Thornton," giving the latitude and longitude as in the admission and section of Revised Statutes under which seized, 1,- 956, and number of skins 403. 30 ^o SO Mr. Dickinson:—May I ask how the report of Lavender got into the British case? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Sir Julian Pauncefote transmits to the Marquis of Salisbury an executive document some pages back, 51st Congress, Second Session, Executive Document No. 49, and the whole of that is printed from page 701 on to 739. Mr. Dickinson:—We desire to state that we will want to put in anything in the same document that qualifies. Sir C. H. Tupper:—The beginning of these sessional papers 60 is at page 701 of Volume 5, 51 st Congress. I would refer to Capt. Abby's deposition for greater certainty upon a point which may not be necessary, but I have not had an opportunit3' to review the evidence. He mentions, page 186 Volume 3 in regard to the seizure in his formal deposition here: "The 'Thornton' had on board four rifles and six shotguns." I am disappointed in the non-attendance of a witness, who was actually here, and who arranged to be here, but is not 967 (J. D. Warren—Direct.) now present—Mr. Griffiths; and there is another witness, the Inspector of Boilers—the Government inspector—who is out of toAvn for the morning, but will be here in the afternoon. Also Mr. Lewis, who is an elderly gentleman, gave a survey, which is the last survey he made on the "Thornton" in 1883, after the time referred to in the evidence. My learned friend naturally prefers that Mr. Lewis should be here to produce it, " rather than that. I should produce it without him, so that Mr. Lewis may be examined. He cannot be here until afternoon. Mr. Dickinson:—I desire Captain Lewis, because he is the man named byT Captain Warren in his testimony at some length. Sir C. H. Tupper:—The absence of, the witnesses has upset a good deal of the work I had laid out for this morning. A suggestion was made, and a very fair one, by my learned friend, that instead of examining Captain Warren over that 20 inventory that was taken, and which has been referred to, we should prepare a statement, or Captain Warren should, and that he should swear to this statement as to the values that he could speak of the articles found, and .submit himself to cre>ss-examination, without taking him on direct examination item by item. So I have prepared with Captain Warren a statement. J. D. Warren, a witness on the part of Great Britain, Was recalled. 3 Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—Captain Warren you produce this list with the prices opposite as being a statement of the values of the articles found in the inventories in the log (marked No. 16) not properly belonging to the ship? A.—Yes. The list and prices are as follows: VALUE OF ARTICLES IN INVENTORY NOT PROPERLY 40 BELONGING TO SHIPS. 1 Axes $ 2 00 2 Barometers 30 00 4 Boats, valued in evidence already 8 Water Casks, Ditto. 4 Boat Compasses at $3.50 14 00 5 Tons of coal, valued in evidence. 10 Yards of Canvas, at 30c 3 00 1 Flag (British) A 12 00 50 1 F0g Horn 25 00 4 Fishing Lines, at 50c. 2 00 1 Grind Stone 2 50 2 Hammers 2 00 3 Stone Water Jugs || 3 00 3 Sheath Knives at 50c M 1 50 2 Pigs Lead 10 00 120 Fathoms Manila Rope, 24 in 30 00 3 Gallons Oil, Fish .. ..'.. .Jr. 75 60 7 Gallons Coal Oil 2 50 10 Pairs Oars, at $2.50 25 00 12 Paddles, at 50c M. 6 00 4 Pairs Rowlocks 2 00 20 Salt (sacks) 30 00 1 Stove H • 50 00 1 Carpenter's Square 1 00 3 Calico Shirts 1 50 1 Woolen Shirt 1 50 968 (John W. Griffiths—Direct.) 2 Sails, spare, already in evidence. 3 Water Tanks, " Ditto. 1 Pair Overalls 75 2 Pounds Tobacco, at 60c 1 20 5 Boxes Bread, at $2.50 12 50 450 Pounds Flour .'.' 11 25 100 Pounds Rice 4 00 100 Pounds Sugar 8 00 42 Packages of Tea 3 50 10 Pounds of Coffee 2 50 2 Packages Hops . 50 1 Tin pepper 10 2 Tins of Lard 2 40 10 Rolls of Butter 5 00 Spear Poles 1 00 6 Pair Spear Irons 6 00 i Coil Manila Rope, fin., 60 pounds 10 80 0 ARTICLES TAKEN FROM SCHOONER. 100 Pounds Flour $2 50 25 Pounds Rice 1 00 69 Pounds Beans 2 07 2 Boxes Bread 5 00 16 Pounds Dried Apples 1 92 15 Pounds Sugar 1 20 Mr. Dickinson:—I have cross-examined fully on this sub- 30 ject and have no further cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I understand that this represents the value of the property of this kind seized at the time of "Thornton" was seized so far as you have an3' knowledge about it. Witness:—That is it. Sir C. H. Tupper:—And, Captain Warren, you, of course, do not refer to the guns and ammunition? 40 Witness:—No, they are not in that list. John W. Griffiths was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and was duly sworn. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—Mr. Griffiths, you were connected with the Albion Iron 5° Works, for how long? A.—Five years, as near as I can remember. Q.—About what time? A.—Between the years '73 and '78. Q.—They carried on a pretty extensive business in Victoria? A.—They carried on the only business for a part of that time, and a large business for all of that time. Q.—During your time they built the steamer Maude and the Cariboo Fly did they not? A.—They built the steamer 60 Maude and overhauled and refitted and almost rebuilt the Cariboo Fly. Q.—Did those boats belong to the company? A.—They belonged to the company. Q.—You repaired the- Government steamer "Douglas," or the engines? A.—We did, and put new boilers in. Q.—Do you remember what the repairs to the engines and boiler cost?- A.—I remember approximately about $19,000. Q.—Besides building vessels, the work of the company was IO 20 30 40 SO 60 969 (John W. Griffiths—Direct.) to repair engines and boilers? A.—The company did not build vessels. It wasn't a company at that time, it was the property of Mr. Joseph Spratt. He built those vessels for his own use. Q.—And then the work of the company was to— A.—Repair vessels, the machinery, and also' build machinery. Q.—Have you ever been on board the steam schooner "Thornton?" A.—Yes, but it was a long time ago. Q.—You have seen her engines? A.—I have seen them. Q.—In those days in Victoria were the wages of mechanics in your line of business high? A.—They were not considered high then. , Q.—Give me an idea what the company got for the work of their men? A.—We got $15 a day for blacksmiths with their helpers, one helper to each. Q.—That is what the company got? A.—That is what the company got. Q.—What did you get for your machinists? A.—$10 a day. Q.—What days? A.—10 hour days. Q.—What period of time is it that you refer to? A.—I think I can safely refer to' '77 and '78. Q.—What did you get for molders' work? A.—Molders' work I am not quite sure of; but the castings for molding is all arranged according to the size and simplicity of the molds, castings arranged in value from 6 to 12J cents for iron castings, and 50 to 75 cents for brass castings. Q.—By the pound? A.—By the pound. Q,—What did you get for pattern makers a day? Pattern makers were $8 a day. Q,—When was that work on the "Douglas" done? A.-— I wouleln't be positive, but I think it was done in '76 or '77. Q.—What size ship was she? A.—She was a vessel of about 600 tons, I think. Q.—You have been on the "Thornton," you know her machinery. Have you been on her when she was under steam? A.—No, sir. Q.—Only when she was lying idle? A.—When she has been alongside the dock. Q.—What would it have cost in the time you are familiar with in Victoria to have put in an engine and boiler similar to that in the "Thornton" in a schooner of her size—about what? A.—Well, it would be pretty difficult to pass an opinion after this time. Q.—You mean an accurate tender or bid, but I mean to give your fair opinion, whatever it is? A.—Well, from 3 to $4000 to build the machinery and put it in running order, repair the vessel, put her bunkers in, and prepare for sea. Q.—Did you see the "Thornton" in 1886? A.—Well, I wouldn't be positive. Q.—Did you see her in 1885? A.—I couldn't be positive. I have seen, I think, all the schooners at different times from the time they were built to the present time; but 1 never took any particular notice of them. ■ Q.—Did you know the schooner well enough to give an opiniem as to her value so far as schooners went in this port at that time? A.—Well, it was generally understood in those times that schooners cost— The Commissioner on the part of the United States: Please answer the question, then we will not get confused. Question repeated. A.—No. IO 20 30 40 970 (Johu W. Griffiths—Cross.) Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—When were you on the "Thornton?" A.—Well, I couldn't tell you the exact time, or the year. Q-—Was it before or after she had steam auxiliary? A.— It was after she had steam in. Q.—What was your business on her at that time? A.— Casually aboard of her, as I have been aboard of all of them. Q.—Just a matter of leisure? A.—A matter of leisure. Q.—No business? A.—No, sir. Q.—It may have been over twenty years ago, or hoAv long ago? A.—It may haA'e been any time since she was built— eight years ago, seven years ago, six years ago; I couldn't tell you. I know I haA'e been aboard of her once or twice. Q.—Hoav long did you stay on these occasions? A.—Oh, from half an hour to an hour, perhaps; ten minutes, perhaps. Q.—Did you look at her engines? A.—I have seen them. Q.—What horse power? A.—I couldn't tell you that; they are small engines placed on board these vessels. Q.—Did you examine it to see whose make it was? A.— No, sir. Q.—Or how it was made? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you examine the boilers? A.—No, sir; I know pretty nearly how those boilers are made. ' Q.—Do 3'ou know the size of the cylinder? A.—No, I couldn't tell you the exact size of the cylinder. Q.—Can you about? A.—Yes. Q.—Let us have it? A.—She might haA'e a cylinder Avith an 8 inch stroke; she might have an 8 by 8 cvlinder or a 6 by 12 cylinder. Q.—And about the size of the boiler? A.—The size of the boiler— Q.—She "might have," you say. You are not swearing from any recollection? A.—How can a man swear positively from any recollection? Q.—Are you swearing from recollection? A.—Swearing from recollection. Q.—You said she might have. We are trying to get at if you can tell from your recollection and your judgment. We do not want possibilities or what might be. Now do you have a recollection so that you can state from your judgment the. size of these things, or do you simply think she might have because of the general condition of the vessel and her appearane A.—That is the way. So 60 Q.^You do not fix it from the examination you made at the time? A.—No. Q.—On the basis on which you have stated your testimony, about what size of engine would you estimate, by power? A. —Well, she might have a four horse or five horse power. Q.—And about what size cylinder? A.—Well, a 6 inch cylinder, 12 inch stroke. Q.—I suppose those engines can be bought ready made? A.—Very cheaply now. Q.—Thenalso? A.—Then; I couldn't be positive. I never saw any of them. Q.—You knew they were for sale in the trade? A.—We didn't keep any. Q.—The Albion Iron Works did not? A.—No. Q.—But there were other places where sue-h things could - be bought? A.—Not in Victoria. Q.—And do you know any other place in the Dominion of Canada where they could be bought? A.—Yes, possibly in the east, in Ontario. Q.—Any place on the coast? A.—No, sir. io 20 30 40 50 60 (John W. <;liiliilis—Cross.) Q.—You did not know of any place on the coast in those daA's? A.—No, sir. Q.—What was your business in the Albion Iron Works? A.—I was bookkeeper. Q.—Were you a machinist at all? A.—No, sir. Q.—Not a mechanic? A.—Not a mechanic. Q.—Never had anything to do with the construction Oj. engines? A.—No further than being around the shop and looking after the men to see what work they were on. • Q.—Your business in connection with the matter had noth ing to do with the practical department? sir. Q.—You were the assignee of Captain Warren, I think the claimant? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the title of this ship is in you? Sir C. H. Tupper:—That is hardly a question for the witness. Q.—You never passed it away from yon? A.—The title e>f the ship was in me. Q,—You never passed it from you by any sale or conveyance? A.—No, sir, not that I know of. Wait a minute; I think to ansAver that question would require some explanation. Q-—If it takes us into (he litigation we will not haA'e it unless the other side wants it. A.—I will simply say -that my position as assignee of that estate was a formal one, and it did not give me enough interest in it to look very much into the details. Q.—The Albion Iron Works were creditors of Warren, I suppose? A.—They had been creditors, I am not sure whether they were at that time or not. Q.—Do you know what led to your selection as assignee? Sort of a friendty arrangement, was it, an act of friendship to accept it? A.—I think it was given to me because they thought I could conduct it as well as anybody else. I don't know as there was any friendship connected with it; I never realized very much out of it; I don't know as it was an act of friendship. Q.—You speak of "they?" Who were they? Who got you to take it? A.—I think I was called on by the directors and creditors. At a meeting of the creditors I think they called me. I think I can remember who was present, and I think they sent for me at my place of business to call there; it is a long time ago. Q.—Who did you mean by the directors? A.—Perhaps I had better not say directors; I don't remember that they were' directors. Q.—Who had you in mind when you said directors? A.— I had no one in particular. . Q.—Did Mr. Warren want you to take it? A.—Mr. Warren was there. Q.—You said a moment ago it was formal. I was trydng to get at what you meant by that? A.—I mean by that it AA'as a position like a figurehead; it was of very little use to anybody; the business was outside of me altogether. Q.—And you were a sort of perfunctory figurehead; is that it? A.—Yes. Q.—Did Joseph Boscowitz ask you to serve? A.—I don't remember that he did. Q.—Did yon charter the vessels after yon were maele assignee to Boscowitz? Sir C. H. Tnpper:—I think if my le>arned friend is going into that part of the case if is hardly regular to put the ques- 972 (John W. Griffiths—Cross--Re-direct.) tion to this witness in that way. best evidence. The charter would be the Mr. Dickinson:—As a matter of fact, I am not going to prove a charter as a part of my cross-examination. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—He is asking a simple fact. If the witness says no, that is the io end of it; but if he says yes; perhaps he cannot go any further without calling for the papers. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I would like my objection recorded to the question as put. Witness:—It is a long way back, sir, and it is a matter that I want to be sure about. I don't want to be doubled up, as it were. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—My 20 learned associate thinks, and I agree with him, that the question should be limited to the simple fact whether he chartered the vessel or not. Mr. Dickinson:—Does your Honour rule that on examination of the witness as to his interest I cannot ask whether he made a charter, and cannot ask as to whom he made it? The Commissioner on the part of the.United States:—It is rather our. opinion that you cannot. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—You could ask whether Mr. Boscowitz used the vessel consequent upon a charter; you can get it out in a roundabout way. 30 Mr. Dickinson:—I think w< leave it there. 40 So 60 Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—Mr. Griffiths, had you an3dhing personally to do with the "Thornton" yourself? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you ever have her in your actual possession? A. —No, sir, I can't say that I have. Q.—Did you ever manage her business or bother yourself with her business or accounts? A.—No, I never did. Q.—You know nothing about her business? A.—I know nothing about her business. Q.—From the time you were assignee down? A.—From the time I was assignee down. Q.—You remember a meeting of creditors that Mr. Warren met? A.—Yes. Q.—And that aftenvards you were asked to act as assignee? A.—Yes, sir; I believe I was called on at that meeting. That is my recollection; that they called at my place of business. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Mr. Dickinson, upon further reflection we are of the opinion that you may ask the mere fact whether or not he chartered to Mr. Boscowitz, just as you put the question. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—Will you please state, Mr. Griffiths, whether you chartered the schooner "Thornton" and others to Mr. Boscowitz as assignee? A.—Not as assignee. Q.—Did you charter her? A.—I did not. Q.—Who did; what do you know about it? A.—I only know that I have seen with the papers a written out charter party. Q.—To whom? A.—To Joseph Boscowitz. Q.—Did you not sign it? A.—I can't remember. IO (John W. Griffiths—Re-cross—Re-direct.) Q.—But it was after the assignment? A.—Well, yes; 1 couldn't—yes, it must haA'e been after the assignment. Direct examination resumed by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—Mr. Griffiths, do you recollect Mr. Hett, lawyer, now dead? -V.—Yes, sir. Q.—He drew these papers, I suppose, that you refer to? A.—Yes, I think he did; I think he was the lawyer. Q.—Have you got the document that Mr. Dickinson referred to—the charter? A.—I don't know. I haven't the papers in my possession; all the papers were in the office of the company. Q.—Do you know Mr. Hett's handwriting? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Will you look at that papeT and see if that is Mr. Hett's handwriting? A.—(Examining)—Yes, and I remember seeing this or a similar document. Q.—That is his handwriting? A.—Yes, that is that charter party. Paper received and marked No. 19 for identification. Q.—When did Mr. Hett die, do you know; about what time? A.—Some two or three years after, I think. Q.—Have you hunted at all for this charter party? A.— No, sir. Q.—You do not know whether you ever had it in your .possession? A.—I neA'er had any of the papers in my posses- 30 sion. Examination closed. 20 Sir C. II. Tupper:—I was about to say before we called Mr. Griffiths that I was disappointed in connection with two Avitnesses, and I would like to have it understood, and to have the permission of the Commissioners as well, that I may later on call Mr. Norman, the mate of the vessel. We have been doing all in our power to obtain his attendance. We believe 40 now we have found his address, and at any rate have sent a subpoena for hhm to attend, but exactly when he will be here it is impossible to say. I would like to transfer the eA'idence in the case of the "Onward," except so far as it is obviously inapplicable, to this case of the "Thornton," as was done in the case of the "Carolena." I suppose my learned friend wishes the cross- examination transferred in a similar way Mr. Dickinson:—Oh, yes. 5° Sir C. H. Tupper:—I desire to transfer also the general eA'idence as to catch, except so far as it is obviously inapplicable. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—If you transfer into this case all the testimony transferred into the "Onward" case from the "Carolena," does not that cover everything there is in the "Carolena" case? Sir C. H. Tupper:—It may, but for greater certainty I 60 would like the record to show that I formally tendered all -that evidence. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you not want to transfer that of the six witnesses, and also that about values and other things? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Yes, and I think these three transfers Avill cover everything, because they were as to the catch and ' 974 (Hubert J. Cook—Direct.) seal life, and their evidence was taken under the head of catch. To be thoroughly sure, I will add that I desire to transfer all the evidence from the experts touching the catch, and the shooting of seals, into this case. From the record, Avhich has already been referred to, the official papers transmitted by the Government of the United States to the Government of Great Britain, I desire to read into the notes 10 short extracts from that correspondence, as follows: "Ounalaska, Friday, August 13th, 1886. "Engaged taking inventory of property on schooner "Thornton." Unbent sails, unrove running gear of schooner and stowed them below. Removed 403 fur seal skins, three pup skins, and one hair seal skin from her and stowed them in Kench & Company's warehouse, and sealed them up. Secured the boats of captured schooners on shore, near astronomical station, aberve high water mark." 20 30 "September 10, 1886. "At the joint request of Governor A. P. Swineford and Judge La Fayette Dawson, I". S. District Court of Alaska, 20 Br. Indians from Nanaimo, B. C, 9 white men, and one Chinamen for Port Townsend, W. T., were received on board, they being parts of the crews of the schooners "Onward," "San Diego" and "Thornton," left in destitute circumstances, there being no employment for them in the region. The United States Marshal furnished the necessary provisions." The above are extracts from the correspondence between the United States Government and their seizing officers. 40 Claims No. 6, "Sayward;" No. 7, "Anna Beck;" No. 9, "Dolphin," and No. 10, "Grace," taken up. Mr. Peters:—It is proposed by counsel on 'both sides that the other cases known as the Warren cases in the year 1887, the vessels all being owned by the same owner, and the same questions probably arising as to the whole of them, shall be tried together. This will materialy shorten the matter. The cases are the "Anna Beck," the "Grace," the "Dolphin," and "SaA'ward." Those four cases it is proposed to try together, and I will now proceed to take some evidence with regard to the value of these different ships. Hubert J. Cook was .recalled as a witness on the part of Great Britain. Mr. Peters:—I transfer into these cases all the evidence of this witness taken in the "Carolena" case and subsequently, except where it is obviously inapplicable; also the cross-examination and re-examination. 60 Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Mr. Cook, do you know the schooner "Anna Beck?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, Mr. Cook, you have your little book here? I want to see how often this "Anna Beck" was on your slip. Was she on- in 1873? A.—(Examining,) October 31st, 1873, that is the day she was launched. Q.—There is a leaf of your book gone, and you cannot tell the date Avhen she went on? A.—I cannot. Q.—Turning to the next year, 1874, do you find her on there, Avent on your slip when? A.—(Examining) February 10th, came off Febuary 24th. Q.—1875, 24th of August, came off when? A—Came off 30th of August. Q.—1876. Was she on your slip that year? A.—30th of September. Q.—When did she come off? A.—October 2nd. Q.—1877? A.—October 29th to November 1st. Q.—1878? A.—July 18th to August 12th. Q—1879? A.—July 26th to July 30th. Q.—1880? A.—July 17th to December 9th. Q-—Was anything particular done to her in that year to your remembrance? A.—That was the time that I put new stern posts into her, took her dead wood out and made her ready for a steamboat. Q.—Was steam put into her that year? A.—Well, steam could not haA'e been in her. Q-—Was it put into her about that time, or that time? A.—Not before she was on the ways, of course. Q.—This was December 9th that was the day she came off, was steam put into her shortly after that?' A.—Yes; I had nothing to do with that. Q.—You simply prepared her for putting steam in? A.— All ready for putting steam in. Q.—Now, look at 1881, 20th of September. To when? A.- (Examining.) September 29th, I think that must be to put on her propeller. Q.—That book shows that that vessel was on your ways those different years on the dates you have mentioned? A.— A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And that in the year 1880 she was fitted for steam? A.—Yes, sir Q.—Do you know anything about what sort of a vessel the "Anna Beck" was? A.—She was a very solid little vessel. Q.—What was she built of? A.—Natural crooks. Q.—What kind of wood? A.—Oregon pine. Q.—How was she for being kept in repair, was she kept in good repair or not ? A.—Kept in very good, what I could see of her. Of course I knew her by having to open her, taking out old stern posts, and old dead wood. I found everything very solid around there. Q —At that time she was solid? A.—She was solid there, and she looked to be solid every part that I seen of her. Q.—Did' you examine her thoroughly? A.—Well to examine a vessel thoroughly, to give a real good judgment of AA'hat a vessel is like she has got to be bored, her beam ends and everything else; a man can't go aboard of a vessel and say she is worth so much. He can form a good opinion of what he sees. Q.—And what was your opinion? A.—My opinion was of her that she was a very good little vessel, she had three inch planking on her. Q.—What was her A.—Oregon pine. Q.—She was all Oregon pine? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, does the eridence that you have given with regard to the cost of building this class of vessels apply to the "Anna Beck." Did she cost as much as the other vessels you have described in your other evidence, as much per ton as you have given for the other vessels? A.—In the first course of vessels? Q.—You gave evidence with regard to the cost of building vessels of this description. Would she have cost the same 976 (Hubert J. Cook—Direct—Cross.) as 3'ou have described for vessels of this description? A.— Yes, she would at about that time.. Q.—That is the last time you had her on your slip, 1881? A.—1881 is the last I see of her. Q.—Was she on other slips afterwards? A.—Yes, she was hauled up after that. Q.—On what slips? A.—On Laing's ways, io Q-—More than once? A.—I couldn't sa3r; she was up there more than once after she had been burned, put new top sides on her. Q.—Did you see that done? A.-^I was not in the yard at the time. Q.—Did you see her being repaired at Laing's? A.—Oh, yes. Q.—You say she was burned, or partly burned? A.—Yes. Q.—And at that time she had new top sides put on? A.— Yes. 20 Q.—Any thing else new? A.—I didn't take any particular- notice. Q.—You were not about the job at all? A.—I had nothing to do with the job whatever. She had new decks, I guess.. Q.—Do you remember when you saw this vessel last? A.— As near as I can remember it must have been about 1885 or 1SS0, something about that, 1886, I think. q _When you saw her in 1885 or 1886, generally speaking she was in good condition, was she? A.—She was in good condition, because she went through a thorough overhauling. 3 Q.—How long before 1885 or 1886 had she gone through this thorough overhauling that you speak of? A.—I do not understand. Q.—Do you remember the date that she was thoroughly overhauled? A.—I do not remember exactly. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—When you say you had this boat on your ways, Mr. Cook, do you mean that she was hauled up every time you 4° mention? A.—Every time. Q.—Hauled out? A.—Yes. Q.—And she was haled out last in 1881? A.—1881 is the last record I have of her here. Q.—What you did to' her then was to prepare her for receiving her engine? A.—That was in 1880. Q.—What did you do to her in 1881? A.—In 1881 she was just hauled out as far: as I can remember, to put the shafts and the boiler on. Q.—You told the Commissioners that she was thoroughly overhauled at one time. What time was that? A.—I cannot exactly tell. Q.—Did you do the work? A.—I did not do the work at that time. Q.—Then any time you had her on your ways she was not thoroughly overhauled? A.—No. Q.—So far as your experience is concerned you cannot tell anything about how she was overhauled? A.—Not when she so Go was thoroughly overhauled, I had nothing to do with that part. Q-—What was the cost of the work you did on the boat the "Anna Beck" in 1880? A.—I do not know, 1 have no records of it. Q.—When was that boat burned? Was-it in 1881? A.— It might have been 1882 or 1883, I am not certain on that point. 977 (Hubert J. Cook—Cross—Walter Walker—Direct.) Q.—Where was she when she was burned? A.—I do not know where she was burned, she was on the coast somewhere. Q.—Was she at sea or at the dock? A.—I do not know that even; I have a recollection of her being burned, and I have a recollection of her being repaired in Laing's yard, we raised her. io Q-—What do you mean by that, increased her depth? A.— Yes, but I did not do the work.' Q.—How much did it cost to construct a vessel like thet "Anna Beck" per registered ton in 1881? A.—Per registered ton? Q.—Yes. A.—A vessel like the "Anna Beck"? Q.—Yes, per registered ton? A.—The hull and spars would cost $130 per ton. Q.—Registered ton? A.—Registered ton. Q.—Have you said that before? A.—No, I have not said 20 that before that I am aware of. Q.—Do you know the tonnage of the "Anna Beck"? A.— It is something over 40 ton, but I do not exactly know what. Q.—Do you know where she was built? A.—No. Q.—Nor how old she was? A.—No, I did not know her age. Q.—You do not pretend to place the value of the "Anna Beck" as she was in 1881, do you, Mr. Cex>k? A.—I could not go within $100 or $200 or $300, you may say. Q.—What is your idea of the value of the "Anna Beck" in 3° 1881? What are you looking at there? A.—I am just looking to see when I got her out first. I think she would be worth betAveen five and six thousand dollars; she was a good solid built vessel Q.—That estimate is based on the cost per registered ton of $130? A.—Ves, that is without her fit-out. Q.—Is that ready to go to sea? A.—Oh, no, that is the hull of the ship. Q,—That is the' cost of her new al that lime in 1881. Is it your idea that a. vessel such as she would cost that? A.—I 40 ?ave you what the vessel Avould cost in 1881 as she stood. Walter Walker, already examined, was called.as a witness on the part of Great Britain. 50 Mr. Beique:—We desire to transfer the evidence of this witness as taken in the "Carolena," "Onward" and "Thornton" cases, except such part as is obviously inapplicable. Direct examination by Mr. Beique: Q.—Did you know the "Anna Beck," Mr. Walker? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—When did you know her? A.—I knew her up until she went to Behring Sea last time. 60 Q-—Bo you know of am' repairs being made on her? A.— Yes, I knew of her being repaired the last time, that was in 1883. Q.—On what occasion was that? A.—She brought down her cargo of coal in 1883, and she was then low in the hold, and she took fire somewhere on the bottom and burned the deck frame and part of the coal cargo; I visited her and had a look at the coal, the ceial was not for me, but it was "for the next vard. However,, I went and saw it. 62" 97* io 20 30 40 SO 60 (Walter Walker—Direct.) Q.—Do you know as to whether she was re-built in 1883? A.—Yes, she was re-built, they raised her then. They saw that she was too low in the hold, and they put from eighteen inches to two feet more on her sides, and put in her a new deck frame and changed her altogether on the top. Q.—Where was she rebuilt? A.—Down here in Langley's ship yard.. Q.—What portion of her was rebuilt? A.—When she was stripped on the frames, and lengthened up to meet the increased height, then a new deck frame was put in, and all the - shelving that is necessary to put in a new deck frame, and she was built from the water up. Q-—Was she practically made a new vessel? A.—Yes, as far as her upper works are concerned. Q.—Did you ascertain the condition of that portion of her Avhich was under water? A.—Underneath she was in good condition. Q-—You had occasion to ascertain that? A.—Well, I have been to the yard when she was repairing; I also had coal in her afterwards and she never made any water and that is a pretty good test. Q.—With what kind of timber was she rebuilt? A.—She Avas rebuilt with Douglas fir. Q.—Do you know what dead weight she carried? A.— Well, before the accident she caried 75 tons, and afterwards she carried 110 tons. Q.—What was the occasion of your knowing that? Did you ediarter her? A.—I had her at so much per ton bringing e;oal from Nanaimo. Q.—What do you consider was her value after being rebuilt in 1883? A.—In 1883 or 1886? Q.—I asked you in 1883, and, then afterwards, I will ask 3'ou about 1886? A.—Well, I consider that she was probably Avorth $8,000 or $9,000 when she first came out in 1883 after the repairs. Q.—And front 1883 to 1887 had yon any occasion to see her? A.—Yes, I took coal out of her between these 3'ears, I cannot exactly tell the last time she carried my cargo. Q.—You had occasion to see her every year? A.—Yes, I saw her every A'ear. Q.—In what condition was she kept? A..—She was kept in good condition. Q.—Did she depreciate from the 3'ear 1883 to the year 1887? A.—Not very perceptibly, but still I should consider there would be a certain amount of depreciation in the engines and boiler, and Avear and tear. q.—What would you estimate her value to be in 1887? A. —From $7,500 to $8,000; the principal depreeuation would be in the engine and boiler, and part of the rigging. Q.—Do you know Avhat was the space taken for the boiler and engine? A.—Do you mean the space occupied? Q.—Yes. A.—You want to know by what rule we make the deductions. Well, the rule is that you measure the whole contents of the vessel first, and if they have over 21 per cent, of the whole tonnage, you give them 32 per cent, of the total tonnage, the deduction is for the engine and space. That is the rule which, I suppose, was followed in this case, but I did not measure her. That is the rule. 32-100ths of the total tonnage after measuring exactly the room occupied by the engine and boiler Q—Do you know the "Grace?" A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you know when she was built? A,—About 1881, I think. IO 20 30 43 50 60 979 (Walter Walker—Direct.) Q.—Do you know what tonnage? A.—No, I do no exactly. Q-—Do you know Avhat she could carry in dead weight? A. —Yes, she could carry 150 or 154 tons, we have had that on her. Q.—Coal? A.—Coal. Q—Had she steam machinery? A.—Yes, and a hoisting engine too besides. Q—What class of engine and boiler had she? A.—We she made very good time for a steam schooner; she used to make pretty good trips, and she must have had a good boiler. Q.—Did you see her when she was constructed? A.—Yes, I saw her when she was building. Q.—What kind of timber was she built of? A.—Well, there was some yelloAv cedar used in the frame, that is these crooks, brought down from up north. Q—How does that compare with Douglas fir? A.—Well, it is supposed to be the very best; these crooks are naturally shaped to the turn of the build, and for that reason it is very valuable; you can get it almost any shape you want, it grows up north on the Skeena river. We built* a boat there, so I know all about it. I know she was built of that, because we were building a little steamer at the same time, and got some of this yellow cedar from Captain Warren to construct our little steamer for the same class of work. Q.—Did you see her in 1887? A.—I saw her in 1887. or somewhere about that time. Q.—What do you consider her value in 1887? A.—In the neighborhood of $12,000, I think that she was well worth $12,000. Q.—Did you know the "Dolphin?" A.—Yes, I knew her, even better than I knew the "Grace." Q.—Did you see her built too? A.—Yes, I saw her built. Q.—In Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—By whom? A.—By McCulIoch Smith. Q.—How was she built? A—She was built of yellow cedar crooks, and Douglas fir, and she was Avell built, much stronger than the "Grace." Q.—Was she stronger built than a vessel of her class generally is? A.—Yes, they put good work in her. Q.—Was she copper fastened? A.—Yes. Q.—And the "Grace" was copper fastened too? A.—Tree- nailed principally, she was not copper fastened in the butts. Q.—The "Anna Beck" also was copper fastened? A.—I cannot say; she had copper on her. It would be very dangerous to put copper, over an iron vess ' Q_When did you see the "Dolphin" last? A.—In 1887. Q.—Had you any occasion to use her in 1887? A.—Yes, before she went sealing she brought down a load of coal; we had sent up for it hurriedly, and I remember well she brought it down, there was ice in the harbour, and she had quite a job to get to the wharf. Q.—In what condition was she? A.—In good condition. Q.—Was she a good boat? A.—Yes, she made a very good trip that last trip. Q.—What do you consider her A-alue in 1887? A.—She was worth about $13,000 or $14,000. Q.—Did you see the "W. P. Sayward" built? A.—Yes. Q_When? A.—About 1881 or 1882, I think it was 1882. Q.—By whom was she built? A.—A man of the name of Strachan. Q.—In Victoria? A.—Yes, in Laing's ship yard. Q.—Do you know what dead weight she carried? could carry about 110 tons. IO 20 30 980 (Walter Walker—Direct-Cross.) Q.—Did she carry coal for you? A.—Yes, we.had a load or two after she was built in the spring of 1883. Q.—Was she built with Douglas fir? A.—Douglas fir throughout. Q.—Any yellow cedar? A.—No, I do> not think so. Q.—Had she natural crooks? A.—Yes, she had part natural crooks.. Q.—She was copper fastened? A.—That I would not say; she was treenailed. Of course I cannot say whether they used copper spikes or not; it is the usual case to use copper spikes when the copper is put on afterwards. They put the plates on first and then trim them afterwards. Q.—When did you see her last? A.—I saw her last year. Q.—You saw her in 1887? A.—Yes. Q.—In the harbour here? A.—Yes, just at her anchorage, 1 was not on board of her. Q.—In 1886 Avere you on board of her? A.—That I cannot say. Q.—Can you say, approximately, when you were on board the last time before the seizure? A.—No-, I cannot absolutely say. Q.—After she was built, what was she worth in 1882 and 1883? A.—I suppose she was worth about $8,000, when sins was newly constructed, and, as schooners went in 1886, I con> sider she was worth close on to $7,000, that is the "Sayward/" She was built in 1882 and there was very little depreciation as she had been Avell taken care of. 40 5o Cross-examination b37 Mr. Lansing. Q.—In fixing the value of these vessels in 1886, you base it upon what, vessels would cost to construct at that time: A.—No, these three last vessels I did not consider had depreciated much at all because they were comparatively new; they were built in 1881 or 1882, and, therefore, they were, only about five or six years old. Q.—Well, you have not fixed the price of the "Sayward" iu 1882 higher than she actually cost? A.—I do not know what she actually cost, but I was judging from the knowledg of what she would cost. She was built by days' work and 1 could not exactly say what she cost. Q.—Days' work is the most expensive? A.—Usually, unless they work in a lot of friends, and, of course, it does not count. Q.—Would you be surprised to learn that she cost about $7,000 in 1882? A.—No, I would not be surprised, the owner and some sailor men might work helping to fasten, and give their labour, and that would not be counted in. Q.—How do you account for the fact that the "Anna Beck" which carried the same amount of dead weight, was valued at a higher price? A.—The "Anna Beck" had an engine- and boilers. Q.—Do you know anything about the gines and boilers? A.—About $2,500. Q.—Do you know anything 60 ally hear what they cost. Q.—Where have you got your information? from the Albion Iron Works and Gowans. Q.—Are you a machinist? A.—No, sir. Q.—Did you ever, yourself, have am'thing to d value of these en- about it? A.—Yes, I genera—Well, with the engines? Q.—Did V.—Well, sometime vou ever buy one? pricing them. A.—Yes, I bought a donkey , enslne, and I ran it on land, but not on the sea. Q.—What horse power? A.—About six I be ieve IO 20 981 (Walter Walker—Cross.) Q.—When did you buy that? A.—About 1888, I believe, but that is no comparison with a marine engine. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Were these regular marine engines with condensers and everything? Mr. Peters:—High pressure? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Then they had no condensers? Mr. Peters:—High pressure, condensing engines, they art? described in the Register. Mr. Beique:—They were low pressure inside. Cross-examination continued by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Do you know where the "Grace" and the "Dolphin'' are? A.—I knoAv the "Dolphin" is here, but I do not know where the "Grace" is now. Q.—Has she got an engine in her? A.—No. Q.—Do you know why the3' took it out? A.—I cannot le 30 u. Q.—Do you know, Mr. Walker, that it never paid in sealing to have one of these engines?' ''•*>' 30 Mr. Peters:—Tim' are not allowed to have by the regulations. Cross-examination by Mr. Lansing, continued: 4° Q.—Is that the only reason they took it out? A.—I do not know, I was unfortunate enough to buy one myself. Q.—When did they take it out? A.—I do not know, it was not here. Q.—It was taken out before the regulations went into effect? A.—It must have been, yes. Q.—In speaking of the deadweight the vessels carried, you refer to her carrying power of coal ? A.—I do. Q-—And on trips they made from Nanaimo to Victoria? A.—Yes. Q.—In inland Avaters? A.—The "Dolphin" to my knowledge went away up north; she made two trips where the "Boscowitz" runs now. Q.—With coal? A.—No with ordinary freight. Q.—You do not know whether she caried that amount of freight? A.—No, I do not think that she carried that amount SO of freight. Q.—Not when she was in the open ocean? A.—No, I should think that that would be too much. Q.—And what you said refers to inland carrying? A.— Yes. Q.—How long does it take for a trip from Nanaimo to Victoria and return? A.—About two and a half days. Q.—Is your estimate of the value of these vessels made from actual knowledge, or from what you consider that they gQ would cost to build per ton. A.—Actual knowledge of the general construction of these vessels; I never base my figures on so much per ton. Q.—How do you reach your estimate? A.—I calculate on the kind of boat I am going to build, and what kind of fastening she will have, I put in the figures, and figure out how much days' work she ought to take and from my knowledge what will be expended on the vessel. Q.—You calculate on the davs work? A.—On the days IO 20 30 982 (Walter Walker—Cross—Re-direct. John Irving—Direct.) Avork and material yes, and the kind of material whether costly or not. Q.—Do you know the "Dolphin" was about 60 registered tons? A.—I suppose that would be her tonnage including deductions. The rule is that a vessel of so many registered tons Avill carry about twice that in dead weight. I have found that b3r experience. Q.—What do you say the "Dolphin" would carry? A.— ' 134 tons. Q.—Was the "Grace" larger? A.—Yes Q.—But not as valuable a vessel? A.—No. Q.—In every case you have calculated that they would carry dead weight to twice the registered tonnage? A.—Pretty much, it will come out about most of the time. Q.—That is the way yon reae;h the dead weight? A.— Yes, with some I did not have them tested. Q.—But the "Sayward" was the only one you had tested? A.—I had a test of her and she carried 110 tons, I had a test of the other two, and the "Grace" carried 154 tons and the "Dolphin" 134 tons. Re-tlirect examination by Mr. Beique: Q—How does the work done by days work compare with the work done by contract? A.—It depends altogether on AA'ho is doing the work, if you have an honest contractor it is just as good as a days work, if he has a reputation to keep up he wants to do his work well. Q.—You have been asked as to your knowledge of the removal of the steam engine from the "Dolphin?" A.—Yes, sir. * J !&ji Q.—Do you know when the steam engine was removed from her? A.—No, I do not. Q.—It was after the vessel had become an American vessel? A.—Oh, yes. I never saw her until last year, since 1887. I saw her in the harbour last vear and she had no en- if 40 50 The Commissioner on the pa you have coal carried in these •t of the United States:—Did vessels in 1886 and 1887? The witness:—Yes, I had a load in 1887 from the "Dolphin." The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Was there the customary demurrage in the coal business at that time for detention of vessels? The witness:—No, I think not; we never had anything of that kind here, we had to take chances on it. 60 John Irving was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and was duly sworn. Sir C. H. Tupper:—The evidence of this witness is given in the case of the "Thornton." Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—Captain Irving, you hold a master's certificate for deep sea navigation? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You are a member of the Local Legislature of British Columbia? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You are managing owner of the Canadian Pacific Navigation Co? A.—Yes, sir IO 20 30 983 (John Irving—Direct—Cross. Q.—How many vessels have you in your fleet? A.—Nine. Q.—How long have you been engaged in buying and selling vessels and having vessels repaired? A.—Since 1874. Q.—You knew the "Thornton?" A.—I did. Q.—When yon knew her first what was she? A.—A sloop. Q.—After that what was she? A—A schooner. Q.—And then? A.—And then she was a steam schooner. Q.—In 1886 what would it have cost to have built a schooner of the size and build of the "Thornton" in Victoria? A.— From eight to ten thousand dollars. Q.—Would that be with the machinery? A.—Yes, with the machinery. Q.—Complete? A.—Complete. Q.—What would one like her have cost to build without machinery? A—I Avould say about $6,000. Q.—You built a smaller boat, I believe, some time ago in Victoria? A.—In 1890 I built a small boat. Q._What did she cost you? A.—Between $13,000 and $14,000. Q._What was she named? A.—The "Standard." Q.—Where did you build her? A.—In Victoria. Q.—What would it cost to put in machinery like the "Thornton" had—I mean outside of the cost of the machinery? A.—To change it would cost at least $2,000 or $3,000. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—How much, Captain Irving? The witness:—Between $2,000 and $3,000. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Besides the cost of the machinery? The witness:—Yes, you Avould have to haul her out and put her on the ways and make the alterations. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper continued: 40 Q.—In 1883 you had no railway communication with Eastern Canada? A.—No. Q.—You changed a boat called the "Maud" from a paddle wheel into a propeller? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—At what cost? A.—$12,000. Q.—What time was that? A.—About 1887 or 1888. Q.—About what tonnage was the "Maud"? A.—About 130 tons. Q.—Can you say generally what is the actual horse power c0 as compared with the registered horse power? A.—That depends on the engine?—it will run say from six to twelve times as much as the nominal registered power. Q.—The registered power is the nominal? A.—The registered is the nominal. Cross-examination by Mr. Warren: Q.—In what year did you first remember the "Thornton"? A.—About 1874. Q.—She was a sloop then? A.—Yes. . Q.—Do you remember her length? A.—I do not remember her length, she was a vessel, I should say, about 80 feet long. Q.—Eighty feet? A.—About that; I do not know exactly. Q.—When you gave your idea of the value of the "Thornton," did you think she was 80 feet long? A.—I never measured her. Q.—What was her beam? A About 18 feet, I should think. 60 IO 984 (John Irving—Cross.) Q.—What Avas the depth of her hold? A.—I should judge about seven feet. (J.—What would her tonnage be? A,—Registered or gross? Q.—Registered? A.—I should say that she was a vessel thai Avouid register about 40 tons, Q.—With the deductions, made on account of the machin- er3'? A.—Yes, of course this is only, guess work, I never measured the vessel, and it is looking- at her alongside the dock that I figure on. Q.—That is 40 tons with the deductions made on account of the machinery? A.—It may be more than that, but I cannot tell you. Q.—I want to find out what 3'ou mean by the 40 tons. Do 3'ou mean after the deductions were made? A.—I should judge it was somewhere about that. Q.—It might be more? A.—It might be more. Q.—When you gave your idea of the ce>st of building a boat 20 like the "Thornton" in 1886 in Victoria,,did yon have 40 tons in your mind or more than that? A.—The dimensions of a boat about that size. Q.—Would it make any difference in the cost of the "Thornton" if it turned out that she was only 50 feet long? A.—It would certainly make a little difference. Q,—Would it make any difference if she was 4 feet 6 inches in the hold instead of 7 feet? A.—Yes, that would make a difference. Q-—You were just making a guess at that,.were you not, 30 Captain? A.—Yes, I have not gone into any calculation about that boat. Q.—You are not testifying from your actual recollection of the boat? A.—From what I could remember seeing of her. Q.—When did you see her last? A.—I cannot tell you. Q.—Have you been accustomed to deal with boats very much larger than the "Thornton" ? A.—All sizes, I have had to do with both smaller and larger. Q.—What small boat did you ever have anything to do 0 with? A.—The "Standard," I built-her here. 4 q—gne was X30 tons? A.—No, she registered about 30 tons. Q.—Was she a steamer? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What did she cost to build in 1890? A.—Between thirteen and fourteen thousand dollars. Q.—Without her steam? A.—No, altogether. Q.—Without her steam, what did she cost? A.—The hull? Q.—Yes. A.—I think the contract price was between four and five thousand dollars. 50 Q-—Was she a yacht? A.—She was not a yacht, but she looked like one. Q.—She was nicely finished? A.—Yes, she was a very nice little boat, she was built for cannery work for towing. Q.—Was she a tug? A.—She was used for that purpose. Q.—Do you think it would have cost about $6,000 to build the hull of the "Thornton" in 1886? A.—I think it was somewhere about that price. Q.—That is if she was about 80 feet in length, 7 feet deep in the hold and 18 feet beam? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And registered 40 tons with deductions made for the machinery? A.—In that neighborhood. Q.—You think that it would cost between two and three thousand dollars to prepare that boat to receive her steam? A.—To put the whole thing in I should think it would cost between two and three thousand dollars. Q.—The Commissioners asked you if that was to receive ^^^aachinerA' and I heard you say "Yes"? A.—That is to 60 IO 20 30 40 50 GO (John Irving—Cross.) take the machinery from the shop and put it into the boat; she would have to be changed in order to put the shaft in. Q.—Would two or three thousand dollars buy the machinery and put it in, or is that exclusive of the cost of buying it? A.—That is exclusive of the cost of buying the machinery Q.—That is to put her sleeve in? A.—Yes, all that work, and making the hole for her propeller. Q.—And you think that the cost of that on the "Thornton" would be between two and three thousand dollars? A. I think the work would cost that. Q.—And when you valued the "Thornton" at between eight and ten thousand dollars, you had in your mind that it would cost two or three thousand dollars, to get her ready? A-— Yes, of course she was a schooner before, and of course they would have to open her. Q.—You have not answered the question. A.—I valued the vessel at about eight to ten thousand dollars with her machinery in her. Q.—What is your idea of the cost of the machinery in the "Thornton?" A.—I should say that the boiler and the whole business, of course I have not seen the machinery Q —You must have some idea of- it when you are testifying to it. The Commissioner on the part of the United States :-r^If he has not seen the machinery he cannot say what it is worth. Q.—But he told us that the value of the vessel, including the machinery was ten thousand dollars, that her value was six thousand dollars, exclusive of the machinery, and the cost of putting in the machinery was two or three thousand dollars. Now, Captain Irving, what is your idea of the cost of the machinery in the "Thornton?" A.—I understood that the cylinder was a 6-inch cylinder, with a 12-inch stroke, and for the boiler and engine, I would say the contract price would not be less than $2,500.' Q.—Captain Irving, in your business experience 3'ou have learned the fact that vessels depreciate in value as they grow old. ■ A.—Sometimes they do, sometimes they do not, it depends on their business. Q.—Is the- We»st Coast of Vancouver Island, and up in Behring Sea an easy place on vessels? A.—Just as easy as in any other part of the world; it is not any worse a ce>ast than the Atlantic. Q.—Do you know Avhat time the "Thornton" was built? A. —No, I do not Q.—Well, if the "Thornton" was built in 1861 and she Avas rebuilt to a certain extent—and perhaps to a very large extent—in 1877—do you think she would depreciate in value up to 1886? A.—It would depend on how she was constructed and the material, if she was built of certain kinds of timber she might be rotten at Ihat time. Q.—If she were built of Douglas fir would she depreciate? A.—That would depend upon the season of the voar the fir was cut; if it was during the winter months and the sap was out of it, the material would be as good as ever it was at that time. Q.—You do not think the "Thornton" was as good in 1886 as she was in 1S77? A.—I do not know, I never examined her The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What type of engine was in the "Thornton?" The witness:—A single engiqe with condensers, I believe, but I do not know. It would not haA'e been anything else to 9?6 (John Irving—Cross. John A. Thomson—Direct.) go to sea with, it would not have been a high pressure engine. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you know the size of the boiler? The witness:—I do not know. io The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Did they run low pressure in those days? — The witness:—Yes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What was the type of engine on the "Standard?" The witness:—Triple expansion engine. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—And the boiler, of course, would ce>st more. 20 The witness:—The boiler, of course, of a triple expansion engine is built to carry 160 lbs. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—In the case of these steamers with triple expansion engines that you have spoken of, the cost of building and-the cost of putting in the engines, etc., would be more? The Avitness:—The Maud's engine was compound and H there were two cylinders. 30 The Commissioners took recess at 1 o'clock. 40 At 2.30 o'clock the Commissioners resumed their seats. John A. Thomson Avas called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and was duly sworn and examined in the "Thornton" case. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—What is your position, Mr. Thomson? A.—I am Inspector of Machinery and Boilers for the Province of British Columbia, and Inspector of Hulls for the Skeena District, c0 and Measuring Surveyor of Shipping for the Province of British Columbia. Q.—-You are in the service of the Dominion Governme-nt? A.—Yes. Q.—How long have you held that position? A.—Six and a half years. Q.—Who was your predecessor? A.—My immediate predecessor was W. A. Russell. Q.—And who before him? A.—There was a lexjum tenens, William Nicholas. 60 Q.—Where are these gentlemen? A.—Mr. Nicholas is dead, and I do not exactly know where Mr. Russell is. Q.—Have you the books of the office in vour possession? A.—Yes. Q-—When boilers are inspected and certificates given in connection with boilers and engines, are records kept by the officers in your position? A.—Yes Q-—And you have these records for British Columbia? A. —Yes, sir. io 20 30 40 SO 60 (John A. Thomson—Direct.) Q.—You have been asked to bring with you the records relating to the "Thornton" and some other vessels in dispute here? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have you these books at present in your possession? A.—I have. Q.—Just turn up the record of .the "Thornton"? A.—I have it. Q.—What date is that? A.—8th October, 1885. Q.—Is the record long? A.—Not very long, there is a statement of tonnage and the dimensions of the vessel, and descriptions of the engine and boilers. Mr. Dickinson:—Whose record is that? The witness:—It is a record of Edward Viger, who is dead. Q.—Will you please read that record for the "Thornton"? Name of vessel, "Thornton." Port of registry, Victoria, B.C. Port and date of inspection, Victoria, Oct. 8th, 1885. Owner and residence, J. D. Warren, Victoria B. C. Tons under tonnage deck, 28.10. Houses on deck, 3.54. Gross tonnage, 31.64. Deductions, 3.00. Registered tonnage, 28.64. Inspection dues and fees, $6.25. Date of payment, October 8th, 1885. To whom and where paid, Collector, Victoria, 13. C. Date of certificate, October 28th, 1885. Date of issue, December 1st. Freight, passenger or tug. freight. Paddle or screw, screw. Route, waters of British Columbia. Year Avhen built, 1861, Dungeness, U. S. Dimensions of hull from certificate of registry: Length. 52 fee^t; breadth, 19 feet 2-10ths; depth, 5 feet l-10"th. Wood or iron. wood. Equipment.—Masts, how man3', 2. Spread of canvas 240 3'ards. No. of funnels, size and height, one, 12x12. No. and dimensions of boats, one, 16x4x2. Equipment of boats and No. oars each, 4 oars, P. B. No. of life preservers and buoys where placed, 1 buoy. No. and weight of anchors, size and length of chain, one, 400 lbs; 100 fathoms f chain; one, 100 lbs. No. of signals and lamps, if a fog bell, 3 signals; 6 lamps, 1 bell. No. of passenger staterooms, No. passengers allowed,-no passengers allowed. No. crew all told, five all told. Diameter and pitch screw, revolutions of engine, 3x9x6, 125 revolutions. Draught of water, light and loaded, 5 feet light, 7 feet loaded. Limited draught of water light and loaded, 6 feet. General qualities.—If sail under canvas alone, yes. ; Speed in miles under steam, 4 miles. Fitness for route, seaworthy qualities, good. Boilers.—General form and dimensions.—Form of boiler, No. of boiler and age, one cylindrical, 5 years. Dimensions of boiler, width, length, height, extreme height, 3 feet, 7 feet diameter. 7 feet long. No. furnaces and thickness of plate, one, 5-16 plate. Dimensions of furnace, if circular, diameter, circular, 3x1x9 diameter. Extreme length. 7 feet. Whether butt or lap joint, single or double butt, single or double riveted, with or without bevel, lap joint single, without bevel. No. outside diameter and length of tubes. 40, tubes 2J diameter. 7 feet long. Diameter of steam drum, 16 in. Dimension of furnace, 3x1x9. Thickness of plates in shell of boiler, 5-16 in. Thickness of plates in steam drum. 5-16 in. Name of maker of plates in shell of boiler, whether steel or iron, iron, Bloomfield, best, best H.. iron. Do. in furnaces, and whether steel or iron. iron. Per cent, of strength of plate at longitudinal joint, as compared to the solid plate, 63 per cent. Per cent, of strength of rivets, 105 ner cent. Diameter and pitch'of rivets in longitudinal joints, f and If. 988 io 20 (John A. Thomson—Direct.) Whether butt or lap joint, lap. Double or single riveted, double. Whether rivet holes are drilled or punched, punched. Stays—Steam Drum.—Number and size of stays in steam drum head, 4 1 in. diameter. To what secured, to sides. Size of opening in shell in steam drum, 16 in. Mean stay strength per square inch of boiler compared to strength of cylindrical shell at longitudinal joints, equal to pressure allowed. General Remarks.—Age of boiler, by whom made, 5 years, Robertson, Victoria! Class, good, fairly good, indifferent, bad. fairly good. When repaired, what repairs, 4 new stays put in. What provision for cleaning, fair. How often cleaned, as required. Reductions below full standard of strength, none. Engine and Machinery.—Compound, condensing or high pressure, high pressure, conelensing. No. and diameter of cylinders, 1 6£ in. Stroke of piston, 12in. Working pressure and point of cut-off, 55 lbs., fcCm Diameter of main journal, 2} in. Diameter of crank pin, 2 in. Diameter of steam pipe, 1-J in. Material in steam pipe, iron. Steam stop valve on boiler. 11 in., brass. Diameter and stroke of feed pump, 1-Jx3 in. Diameter of piston rod, 1J in. . Workmanship and general efficiency of engine, fair. Diameter of feed water pipe, J in. Boiler Fittings—Safety vales, etc.—No. and size of locked 3° safety valves, spring or lever, 1 spring. 2\ in. diameter. Size of steel, No. of coils, and length of main spring when open. 'Size of coils of steel, 6 in. long, f in. diameter. No. and size of open valves, two, \\ in. diameter. Area of locked valve to square foot of grate, do., open valves, \ in. to each square foot. No. of try cocks, 3. No. of steam gauges, 1. No. of water glass do., 1. Range of do., do., 6 in. Boiler Test.—Tes{ and Condition of Boilers.—Hydraulic test pressure in pounds per square inch, 110 pounds. State of boiler under same, whether good, fairly good, indifferent or bad, good. Working pressure allowed, 52 lbs. Adjustment of safety valves, by whom, when last adjusted, whether under steam or by water pressure, same time as test by Inspector E. S. Alger. Were the boilers cleaned preA-ious to test, yes. Were they examined inside, yes. Were they examined outside, and by whom, yes, E. S. Vige?. The inspector will here state the condition in whihc he finds the boilers; if neglected and badly used, by whom, very fair. Boiler bed, in what material laid, 5° is the bottom Avet or dry, cast iron cradle. Cradle fasten- 40 mgs, bolts. Holding down bolts and braces, and to Avhat secured, 1ft. x £in. straps to keelson. ■ Q.—I put in your hand exhibit 49, G. B., being the certificate of survey relating to the "Thornton," in which it appears that the number of horse power combined is 1.21, and I would ask you Mr. Thomson what actual horse power that registered horse power would represent; state about it? A. <5o —That is not quite correct there, it is a little small In that survey. Q.—First, if you like, take a look at your book, and state what you would say her actual horse power was? A.—By the revolutions as given in this report here and the cut-off as given here, she ought to run from 13 to 15 horse power, it depends a good deal on the circumstances. Q.—You say that the nominal horse power in the survey seems to be understated in your opinion? A.—The nominal 9^9 20 30 4o 5o 60 (John A. Thomson—Direct—Cross horse power is got by squaring the diameter of the cylinder, and dividing by 30; the square of 6£ is 42J, and 30 into that is 1.4. Q.—That is the way the nominal horse power is reached under the British Merchant Shipping Act? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now, Mr. Thomson, having read the description of this boiler and engine, I ask 3'ou what, approximately, would be the cost of that in Victoria in 1885? I refer to the engine, boiler and attachments? A.—The boiler at that time was. given as fiAre years old. Q.—I say having read that description of the boiler and engine, what would the boiler and engine and attachments approximately cost when new to be constructed in Victoria about that period? A.—$2,600 or $2,700. Q.—Did you, or did you not, actually see the "Thornton"? A.—Oh, yes, I have seen the "Thornton." Q.—And this engine and boiler? A.—I have seen them, but not to examine them. Q-—You have, as a matter of fact, seen them, but not in 3'our official capacity? A.—Yes, sir. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q-—You have the Registry shown to you, and you say, that, estimating from your own record, the horse power is a little smaller there? A.—Yes, sir. Q-—The difference is between 1.2 and 1.4. A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Where did you say that that boiler was made? A.— At Victoria, by Robertson. Q.—The boiler was made in Victoria? A.—Davie was the man that constructed it under Robertson & Son. Q.—Is that part of your own report? A.—Yes. Q.—Does this correspond with what vou have read? A.— Yes. Q.—Have you examined it to show that it does correspond with the record you have read? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Now. when you say that her horse power is from 13 to 15 3'ou mean that that is the utmost capacity? Avhat it would work up to. Q.—It is not permitted though to use that? is. Q.—The highest capacity? A.—Yes. Q.—How much pressure was she allowed? A.—52. Q.—How much was her capacity? A.—How do you mean? Q.—How much pressure? You would test by pressure the strength of the boiler? A.—Yes, sir, but the horse power would depend on what they could get out of the engine. Q.—What is ihe total pressure? A.—It is given here 55. Q—What was the test of the hydraulic presure? 110 lbs. Q.—How do you explain the difference between the registered power and your estimate? A.—Well, the nominal horse power as it is known under the Merchants Shipping Act, and that is Avhat is put in the register, is only a relative term. It practically has no definite bearing upon the actual horse power of the engines at all. That is a matter that depends entirety upon the cut-off, the pressure of steam, and the revolution of the engine, Avhich are not taken into consideration at all in the number of horse power. Q.—Will you please tell us whether, under the laws as you understand them, and apply them, the capacity of this engine under the law would be 15 horse power? A.—Oh, yes, they could get 15 hovse poAver out of her, 990 20 (John A. Thomson—Cross.) Q.—Will you tell us how you get that horse power? From what measurement? A.—From the area of the piston. Q—Which is how much? A.—The area of the piston is about 33i square inches, or thereabouts, and at 6£ diameter it would be 33 and a little fraction. Q— Tell us hoAV you get that? A.—You multiply that by the pressure upon it, and by the number of feet the piston to travels per minute, and divide by 33,000; that gives you the horse power. Q-—That is the way you figure it from 13 to 15 horse power? A.—Yes, sir. ' Q.—Is there anything you want to add to that to make it clear? A.—That is clear enough to me, but I don't know about an37one else. Q-—All I want to know is if that is the way you arrive at it? A.—Yes, sir Q.—You take into consideration nothing but what you have stated? A.—Not to get the horse power. Q.—HaA'e you been engaged in the busines of mechanics at all? A.—Oh, yes, sir. Q.—In a machine shop? A,—Yes, sir. Q.—Here in Victoria? A.—No, sir Q.—Whereabouts? A.—In England. Q.—Did you have any experience in the construction of engines and boilers at current prices? A.—A little; not much. Q-—And you have estimated at this period, for which you 3° have the inspection, the cost as new? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Did you ascertain from your inspection that the boiler had been over five years in the "Thornton?" It is given as five 3'ears in the "Thornton?" A.—Yes. Q-—And, therefore, the engine has been there that length of time, as you understand it? A.—Yes, sir, I understand so. Q.—Having estimated it at the time of inspection, of which you have read, by the figures you have named, what is the value of that engine and boiler, it having been in use for five years? A.—You might understand that they are not in a condition of being used for five years, because these boats, of course, were only used in the sealing business, and they were only out a. certain time in the year. Q,—Do not argue the question, because you may not know that this vessel was used in other business? A.—I did not know it. Q.—She was used in the coal and trading business on the coast to some extent. A.—I am giving it on what the inspector says here; it gives the condition of the engines as being "fair," and the condition of the boiler as being "very fair," and so the boat must have been kept in good repair. Q.—Will you get to the question and answer it? You estimated this as new at this period, now having been in use for five years what was the boiler and engine worth? A.—Offhand it would not be easy to say. I see thatr she was kept in good repair, and it does not necessarily follow that depreciation would go on to certain extent all the time: it is generally taken in the matter of cost as a depreciation of 7 1-2 per cent Q.—Now, I will ask 3'ou about this particular boiler and engine. Do you mean to say that the boiler and engine having been in use for five years it would sell for anything like 7 1-2 per cent, off $2,700? A.—I have no doubt in the world it would. Q.—It would sell for that second hand and having been five years in use? A.—I have no doubt it would. 40 SO 60 (John A. Thomson—De io 20 ^o 99' -direct—Re-cross. Gordon T. Grant- Direct.) 40 Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—Perhaps you could give your reason for that. A.—My reason is given here, this independent inspector reports that everything is "very fair," "fair" in the official language of the book, means good, and "good" means excellent. Re-cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson : Q.—Did you look over these books to see whether there was any other inspection of the "Thornton"? A.—Yes, sir, I have got three years here, and owing to the circumstances of the case, when the inspector died during his term, another locum tenens was appointed and he was not very particular in what he put down; it takes three years to cover them and get a proper statement. Q.—And you have taken that from the latest one? A.—1 have taken it from whereA'er it comes in in the latest one. Q.—What was the latest one? A.—This one here, 1885. Q.—In making the statement you have made here, have you referred to a prior inspection also? A.—1883 and 1884. Q.—And you have not referred alone to the inspection of 1885? A.—1885 is the one I read. Q.—You have read that? A.—Yes. Q.—In what way have you referred to the other two inspections? A.—To see what I could learn from them. Q.—But you have not read into the language of the statement that has.been taken down anything outside the inspection of 1885? A.—Oh, it is entirely out of the inspection for 1885, I have not even found the other inspection, but I know that it is here. Q.—I thought you said you read them ? A.—Some of them. Q-—You have not put into this record here anything but the one inspection? A..—No, sir. Q-—And these others are all prior? A.—Yes, they are all prior, I have, not even seen the other one yet, but I will look it up now if you wish. Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—The statement yon have read from this book refers to the last inspection? A.—-Yes, sir. . Q.—That is the record of 1885? A.—Yes. Q-—And nothing that you have seen in any other entry affects your opinion? A.—No, I merely saw a prior entry in the index, I have not seen it yet. 5o 60 Gordon F. Grant was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and was duly sworn and examined in the "Thornton" case. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—What is your position, Mr. Grant? A.—Chief engineer on be>ard the Canadian Government steamer "Quadra." ' Q.—How long have you been chief engineer in the Government service? A.—About eighteen years. Q.—And before that you were in a subordinate position as engineer? A.—Yes, sir, for some time in a machine shop. Q.—You had to do practically with machinery? A.—Yes, sir. I am a machinist by trade. Q.—You knew the "Thornton"? A.—Yes, sir, J knew her. 992 (Gordon F. Grant—Direct—Herbert G. Lewis—Direct— Cross.) Q.—You have been in the court room while Mr. Thomson was giving his evidence? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you have listened attentively to him? A.—Yes, sir, I did. Q.—Are 3'ou, generally speaking, of the same opinion as he is? A.—I think Mr. Thomson's valuation would be a very fair ,q valuation as near as I could judge. Q.—And as to Avhat he said as regards the nominal horse power and the actual horse power, you agree with what he has stated? A.—Yes, sir. Mr. Dickinson:—There is no cross-examination. 20 3° 40 5o 60 Herbert G. Lewis was called as a witness on the part of Great Britain and was duly sworn and examined in the "Thornton" case. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—Mr. Lewis, you were for some time agent of the De partment of Marine and Fisheries in Victoria? A.—I was, sir. Q.—And previous to that you were Marine Surveyor? A.— Marine Surveyor for the underwriters in San Francisco. Q.—At the port of Victoria? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—About when did you cease to discharge these duties? A.—At the end of the year 1883, I think. Q-—Then you went into the Government service? A.—Yes. Q.—You are not in the Government service now? A.—I am shipping master now. Q.—You are not agent for the Marine and Fisheries Department now? A.—No, sir. Q-—You were asked to produce the last survey you made of the steam schooner "Thornton," were you not? A.—I do not know if it was the last time I did survey her, Q-—Were you asked to produce the surveys in your possession? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Can you now produce the last survey you made? A. —November 14th, 1883, is the last. Q.—Have you any later than that? A.—No, sir. Q-—That is your signature to the end of that report? A.— Yes. I Q-—For whom did you make it? A.—For the insurance company. Q—Are the statements in that report correct? A. They are correct so far as I know. Sir C. H. Tupper:—I offer that in evidence, may it please the Commission. I may state that these slips are taken out of a book for the purpose of this trial. Received and marked "Exhibit 51, G. B., Claim No. %." Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q-—That is your signature? A.—Yes, sir. Q—Is the paper in your handwriting? A.—Yes, sir Q.—Did you make the inspection personally? A.—I did. Q.—You went on the ship? A.—Yes, sir. The Commissioner on the part of the United States: I would like to have that paper, Exhibit 51, read now. Sir C. H. Tupper read the paper. 993 (Herbert G. Lewis—Cross.) Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson continued: Q.—Apart from the paper do you remember the facts in regard to making this survey? A.—Yes, sir Q.—Had the ship then been overhauled? A.—As far as I recollect, she had been overhauled. Q.—She had been taken off the ways? A.—I think she io had been off the ways, I do not recollect. Q.—The object of making your survey was because she had been put in good condition? A.—I presume it was for that. Q.—That was in 1883? A.—Yes. Q.—Did she then have the auxiliary steam power in her? A.—I do not think that she had, but I am not sure Q,—But do you remember that she had been recently on the ways? A.—I think so, sir, but it is a long time ago, and I am not certain. Q.—Can you tell us what you mean by calling her in pretty 20 fair order? A.—Well, she was in good order, as far as that goes. Q.—I am not asking for your memory of it now, but for your own interpretation of your own language? A.—Well, that means good order. Q.—Does it mean first-class? A.—Well, yes, sir, I think so. Q.—Did you think she was a pretty old ship then? A.— We did not find out Avhere she was built or anything in those da vs. ?o 43 So Co The Commissioners resumed the consideration of the cases of the "Anna B<>ck," "Dolphin," "Grace," and the "W. P. Say- AA'ard." Mr. Peters:—Allow me to put in for the information of the court the registries of these ships. I put them in as follows: lows: ' Copy of the Register of the "W. P. Sayward," Claim No. 6. Received and marked "Exhibit 52. el. B., Claim N. 6. Copy of the Register of the "Anna Beck," Claim No. 7. Received and marked "Exhibit 53, G. B. Claim No. 7." Copy of the Register of the "Dolphin," Claim No. 9. Received and marked "Exhibit 54, G. B. Claim No. 9." Copv of the Register of the "Grace," Claim No. 10. Received and marked "Exhibit 55. G. B. Claim No. 10." The Commissioner an the part of the United States:—What is the gross tonnage of the "Dolphin" as it is stated there? Mr. Peters:—06.24 tons. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What is her age? Mr. Peters:—Built in Victoria in 1882. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—State the same particulars about the other ships. Mr. Peters:—The "Grace," was built in Victoria in 1881, gross tonnage 83.01. The "Anna Beck" was built in San Francisco in 1865, gross tonnage 41.17, I believe she was increased afterwards. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—What is the date of that Register. Mr. Peters:—14th February, 1881. The "W. P. Sayward" was built in Victoria in 1882, her gross tonnage was 64.11. 63 994 (John A. Thomson—Direct.) Mr. Peters:—-These documents contain the record of these ships down to. the present time. John A. Thomson was recalled as a witness on the part of 10 Great Britain. Sir C. II. Tupper:—We transfer the introductory evidence of this witness from the "Thornton" case to these cases. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—I ask you, Mr. Thomson to turn up the record of the "Anna Beck" from that book of yours and state it to us. "Name of vessel, 'Anna Beck.' Port of registry, Victoria. B. C. Port and date of inspection, Victoria, Jan. 16, 1885. Owner and residence, J. D. Warren, Victoria, B. C. Tons under tonnage deck, 51.37. Houses on deck, 6.29. Gross tonnage, 57.66. Deductions, 9.16. Registered tonnage, 48.50. Inspection dues and fees, $7.32—$2.32 dues, $5.00 fees. Date of payment, January 8th, 1884. To whom and where paid, Collector, Victoria. Date of certificate, January 20th, 1885. Date of issue, January 20th, 1885. Freight, passenger or tug, freight. Saddle or screw, screw. Route, waters of B. C. Year and where built, San Francisco, 1856. Dimensions of hull, length 71 feet 1 tenths; from certificate of breadth, 22 feet 5 tenths. Registry depth, 7 feet 2 tenths. Wood or iron, wood. "Euipment:—Masts, how many, 2. Spread of canvass, about 900 yards. No. of funnels, size and height, 1, 14 inches diameter, 12 feet long. No. and dimensions of boats, 1, 14 feet. Equipment of boats and No. oars each, 4. No! of life preservers and buoys, where placed, 6 life preservers, 2 buoys aft. No. and weight of anchors, 2, one 450 pounds and one 500 pounds. Size and length of chain, 50 fathoms, § in. chain. No. of signals and lamps, if a fog bell, 3 signals, 4 lanterns. No. of crew, all told, 5, 1 officer. No. and size of steam pony pumps, 1 injector. Draught of water, light and loaded, 4 feet 4 inches mean. "General Qualities:—If sail under canvass alone, yes. Speed in miles under steam, 6 miles. Fitness for route. Seaworthy qualities, good. Protection from fire, from coal oil, good. From boilers, from kite-hem, good. "Boilers:—Form of boiler, No. of boiler and age, 4 years. 1 return tubular. Dimension of: width, length, height, 43 diameter, extreme height, 7 long. No. furnace and thickness of plate, one, 5-16. Dimensions of furnace, if circular, diameter, 22 diameter. Extreme length: length between rings, thickness of plate, 7. Whether butt or lap joint, single or double riveted, with, or without be-vel, lap,'single, without bevel. No., diameter, length and thickness of flues, see furnace. No. outside diameter and length of tubes, 40 tubes, 2\ dia., go 7 long. Depth of back connection, external. Diameter of, and thickness of, plate in steam chimney, outside and inside, i plate, 27x24 diameter. Dimension of furnace, 23x3. Thickness of plates in shell of boiler, 5-16. Do. of flange plate in steam machinery, 5-16. Name of maker of plates in shell of boiler, whether steel or iron, unknown, iron. Do. in furnaces, and whether steel or iron, iron. Per cent, of strength of plate at longitudinal joint, as compared to the solid plate, 65 per cent, of plate and 98 per cent, of rivets. 995 (John A. Thomson—Direct.) Diameter and pitch of rivets in longitudinal joint, 5-8x2. pitch. Whether butt or lap joint, lap. Double or single riveted, double. Whether rivet holes are drilled or punched, punched. "Stays:—Nei. and diameter of through bolts from end to end of boiler, 6, 1 diameter. Mean strength per square inch of boiler, compared to strength of cylindrical shell at longi- ._ tudinal joints, equal to shell and pressure allowed. "General Remarks:—Age of boiler, by whom made, 4 years, J. Robertson. Class, fairly good. When repaired, what repairs, new stays put in Jan. 2, 1885. Engine:—Engine and machinery, compound, condensing or high pressure, condcns- in, 899, high pressure. No. and diameter of cylinders. 1, 6.5 dia. Stroke of piston, 12. Working pressure and point of cut-off, 75 pounds, $ of stroke. Diameter of main journal, 2\. Diameter of crank pin, 2 inch. Diameter of steam pipe, 2 inch. Material in steam pipe, iron. Diameter and stroke 20 of feed pump, -.75x4.5. Diameter of piston rod, 1-J. Workmanship and general efficiency of engine, fair. Diameter of feed water pipe, f. "Boiler Fittings, Safety Valves, &c.:—No. and size of locked safety valves, 1, safety valve, 3. diameter; spring or lever, spring. No. and size of open valves, 1, 3 diameter, spring. Area of locked valve to square foot of grate, do. open valves, full, \ to 1 sq. foot; \ to 1 sq. foot. Area of open and locked valves, 1; to square foot of grate, to 1 sq. foot. No. of try cocks, 3; 3 above highest heating. surface. No. of steam 30 guages, 1. No. water glass, do., 1. Range of do. do., 6. "Boiler Test, Test and Conditiem of Boilers:—Hydraulic test pressure in pounds per square inch, 130 pounds. State of boiler under same, whether ge>od, fairly good; inelifferent or bad, good; working pressure allowed, 75 pounds. Adjustment of safety valves, by whom, when last adjusted, whether under steam or water pressure. Under steam after new ones had been fitted by inspector. Were the boilers cleaned previous to test? Yes. Were they examined inside? As far as possible. Were they examined outside, and by whom? Yes, 4° inspector. The inspector will here state the condition in which he finds the boilers; if neglected and badly used by whom. In good order and condition. Boiler bed in what material laid, wood. Is the bottom wet or dry? dry. Cradle fastenings, chocks; iron straps, wood. Holding down bolts and braces, and to Avhat secured, screws to keelsons. Q.—Is that the last inspection of the "Anna Beck" that you can find in the records? A.—That is the last, as far as I can find. 5° Q.—You read from that that Robertson made the boiler? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Does it say by whom the engine was made? A.—No, sir. Q.—Do you know as a matter of fact? A.—I know as a matter of fact. Q.—Who Avas it? A.—Mr. Garvin. Q.—About what actual horse poAver is indicated in that record. A.—It would run a little more than the other go one, I do not think it giAres the number of revolutions, but it Avill be a little more than the other one. Q.—About what? We do not want 10 be exact? A.— ' Something about 15; it would be very little more than the "Thornton," ii ix the same size of engine apparentty, but there is a little more steam pressure, and, of course, that would indicate more horse power. q.—Did you know Ihe ship "Anna Beck?" A.—Only just to see her. 996 (John A. Thomson—Direct.) Q.—What value would you place upon her boiler, engine and attachments from that record? A.—It might be worth a little more than the"Thornton's" because it is a larger seize. Q.—About what would it be worth? A.—I would put it at about the same price as the "Thornton's" owing to it being practically a duplicate, it might be a little larger, but it is as nearly as possible a duplicate. Q.—It is larger as a matter of fact? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—But you would place the value at about the same? A. —Yes, sir. Q.—Turn now to the record of the "Grace" and state what it says from your book. "Name of vessel, "Grace." Port registry, Victoria. Port and date of inspection, Victoria, B. C, March 3, 1885. Owner and residence, J. D. Warren & Co., Victoria. Tons under tonnage deck, 78.51. Houses on deck, 4.50. Gross tonnage, 83.01. Deductions, 6.14. Registered tonnage, 76.87. Inspection dues and fees, $3.32, $5.00—$8.32. Date of payment, March 2nd, 1885. To whom and where paid, collector, Victoria. Date of certificate, March 14th, 1885. Date of issue, March 14th, 1885. Freight, passenger or tug, freight and passenger. Paddle or screw, screw. Route, waters of British Columbia. Year and where built, 1881, Victoria, B. C. Dimensions of hull from certificate of registry, length, 76 feet 5 tenths; breadth, 23 feet 4 tenths; depth, 8 feet. Wood or iron, wood. "Equipment:—Masts, how many, 2. Spread of canvas, 700 yards. No. of funnels, size and height, one, 15x2, 6. No. and dimensions of boats, 2, 15x5x22 and 17x4.6x20. Equipment of boats and No. of oars each, 6 oars. No. of metallic fire buckets in rack, 6 buckets. No. of axes and where placed, 4, variously. No. of life preservers and buoys, where placed, 30 life preservers, 1 buoy aft. No. and weight of anchors, 2, 600 and 700 pounds; size and length of chain, 90 fathoms, £ chain. No. of signals and lamps, if a fog bell, 3 signals,' 6 lanterns, 1 bell and horn. No. passengers allowed, 25 passengers. No. of crew all told and No. of officers for deck, 5 all told, 1 officer. No. and size of hand fire engine pumps, 3x4. No. and size of pony pumps, 3x4. Lenth and size of hose and where placed, 50 1-J dia. on deck. Diameter and pitch screw, revolutions of engine, 120 rev., 3x6. Draught of water, light and loaded, 7 and 9. Limited draught of water, light and loaded, 8. "General Qualities:—If sail under canvas alone, yes.- •Speed in miles under steam, 5 nautical miles. Fitness for route, seaworthy qualities, good. Protection from fire, from coal oil, good; from boilers, from kitchen, good. Boilers, General Form and Dimensions:—Form of boiler, No. of boiler and age, cylindrical, 4 years. Dimension of, width, length, height, extreme height, 48 in diameter, 7 feet long. No. furnace and thickness of plate, 1, 5-16. Dimension of furnace if circular, diameter, 3x2. Extreme length,' 7. Whether butt or lap joint, lap; with or without bevel, without bevel. No. outside diameter and length of tubes, 59 tubes, 2J dia., 7 long. Depth of back connection, external. Diameter of steam drum, 18. Dimension of furnace, 2x3. Thickness of plates in shell or boiler, 5-16. Thickness of plates in steel drum, \. Name of maker of plates in shell of boiler, whether steei or iron, Brown & Freer, Iron. Tensile strength of plates in shell to the square inch, unknown. Per cent, of strength of plate at longitudinal joint, as compared to the solid plate, 68 per cent. Diameter and pitch of rivets in longitudinal joints, 2xf. Whether butt or lap joint, lap. (John A. Thomson—Direct.) Double or single riveted, double. Whether rivet holes are drilled or punched, punche "Stays, Steam Drum:—Number and size of stays in steam drum head, 4, }, 20 long. To what secured? sides. Stay power in shell of boiler—No. and diameter of through bolts from end to end of boiler, 4, 1 diameter. Mean stay strength per square inch of boiler, compared to strength of cylindrical f shell at longitudinal joints, equal to shell. "General Remarks:—Age of boiler, by whom made, 4 years, Spratt, Victoria. Class, good, fairly good, indifferent, bad, fairly good. When repaired, what repairs, 1884, repaired. When last lifted, 1884. What provision for cleaning, gewd. How often cleaneeL as required. Reductions below full standard of strength, 25 per cent. Why deductions, furnace. "Engine, Engine and machinery:—Compound, condensin or high pressure compound condensing. No. and diameter of 20 cylinders, 2 cylinders, 12x6£. Stroke of piston, 12. Working pressure and point of cut off, 80 pounds. Diameter of main journal, 3|. Diameter of crank pin, 3. Diameter of steam pipe, 3. Material in steam pipe, wrought iron. Dia meter of stroke of feed pump, 2|x6. Diameter of piston roe". If. Workmanship and general efficiency of engine, fairly good. Diameter of feed water pipe, lin. diameter. How feed1 is regulated, cock. "Boiler Fittings, Safety Vah'es, &c.:—No. and size of locked safety valves, spring or lever, 1, 2\, spring. Size of steel, 30 No. of coils, and length of spring when opened, f, 10. No. and size of open valves, 1, 2^ spring. Area of locked valve to square foot of grate, do. open vatees, 5 to 1 square ft. No. of try cocks and height of lowest above highest heating surface, 3.01 in. No. of steam: gauges, 1. No. water glass do., 1. Range of do., do., 6. "Boiler Test, Test and Condition of Boilers:—Hydraulic test pressure in pound per square inch, 120 pounds. State of boiler under same, whether good, fairly good, indifferent, or bad, good. Working pressure allowed, 80 pounds. Ad- 40 justment of safety valves, by whom, when last adjusted, whether under steam or water pressure, same time as test by E. S. Viger. Were the boilers cleaned previous to test, yes. Were they examined inside, yes. Were they examined outside, and by whom, yes, E. S. Viger. The inspector will here state the condition in which he finds the boilers; if neglected and baelly used, by whom, very good. Boiler bed, in what . material laid, is the bottom wet or dry, we>od with wrought iron coA'or. Cradle fastenings, iron bolts, 1. Chocks, wood. Holding down bolts and braces, and to what secured; one in. 5° bolts secured to bottom timbers. Q.—I will ask you in this case, as I did in the other, about what the actual horse power is? A.—I would make it over Q.—And what is the nominal? A.—6.2. Q.—That is a larger description of engine and boiler than 3'ou have already spoken of? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—What would you value the engine, boiler and neces- sary attachment at in 1885? °° The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you mean as new, or taking into consideration its age? Sir C. H. Tupper:—I think it better to take it in 1885; he is judging undoubtedly from that report. (To the witness): What was the value in 1885? A.—About $3,500. Q.—The nominal horse power of the "Grace" is stated in the Registry as 15, and the stroke is given here as 12, and the 998 io (John A. Thomson—Direct.) diameter of the cylinder, 12 inches and 6| inches, what do you estimate the horse power of that ship to be? A.—The square of 64 is 42.25, and the square of 12 is 144, add that together and you have 186.25, divide that by 30 and it gives you 6.2 as the nominal horse power. Q.—6.2 is what is known as the nominal horse power for the purpose ofthe Register? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You think that is incorrect? A.—It is put down at that, but that is not according to the Merchant Shipping Act. Q.—Is that the last entry you can find relating to the "Grace"? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Please turn up the record for the "Dolphin" and read it. 20 "Name of vessel, "Dolphin." Port of registry, Victoria, B. C. Port and date of inspection, Victoria, November 2nd, 1885. Owner and residence, J. D. Warren, Victoria, B. C. Tons under tonnage deck, 61.95. Houses on deck, 4.30. Gross tonnage, 62.64. Deductions, 6.14. Registered tonnage, 60.10. Inspection dues and fees, $7.68. Date of payment, November 2nd, 1885. To whom and where paid, collector, Victoria. Date of certificate, November 2nd, 1885. Date of issue, December 1st, 1885. Freight, passenger or tug, freight and deck passenger. Paddle or screw, screw. Route, waters of B. C. Year and where built, 1882, Victoria. Dimensions of hull from certificate of registry. 30 length, 77 feet; breadth, 22 feet 7 tenths; depth 7 feet 5 tenths. Wood or iron, wood. "Equipment:—Masts, how many, spread of canvas, 2, 300 yards of canvas. No. of funnels, size and height, 1, 18 diameter, 20 long. No. and dimensions of boats, 2, 15x4, lOx 22, 17x4, 6x20. Equipment of boats and No. oars each, 6 oars, P. B. H. No. metallic fire buckets in rack, 6 in rack. No. of axes and where placed, 5, variously. No. of life' preservers and buos's where placed, 31 life preservers, 1 buoy aft. No. and weight of anchors, 2, 500 and 600 pounds; size 4° and length of chain, 120 fathoms, 1. No. of signals and lamps, if a fog bell, 3 signals, 5 lamps, 1 bell. No. of passenger staterooms, No. passengers allowed, deck passengers, 50 No. crew all told, No. officers for deck, 6 all told, 1 officer. No. and size of hand fire engine pumps, 1, 4x6. Length and size of hose and where placed, 50 ft. 1§ in., 50 feet 1, on deck. Diameter and pitch screw, revolutions of engine, 3 ft. diameter 6 pitch, 140 rev. Draught of water, light and loaded, 4 ft. 6. 6 ft. loaded. Limited draught of water, light and' loaded, 5 ft. "General Qualities:—If sail under canvas alone, yes. Speed in miles under steam, 4 miles. Fitness for route, seaworthy qualities, fair. Protection from fire, from coal oil, good; from boilers, from kitchen, good. "Boilers, General Form and Dimensions:—-Form of boiler, No. of boiler and age, one, cylindrical, 1 year. Dimensions of, width, length, height, extreme height, 52 diameter, 8 long. No. furnace and thickness of plate, 1, f. Dimensions of furnace, if circular, diameter, 24 diameter, 7,11£ long. Extreme length, thickness of plate, in two lengths each 3, 5f long. Whether butt or lap joint, single or double butt, single or double riveted, with or without bevel, double butt joint. No. outside diameter and length of tubes, 53 tubes 2\ dia., 7, 11£ long. Depth, of back connection, external. Diameter of steam drum, 20. Dimension of furnace, 24x3. Thickness of plates in shell of boiler, f. Thickness of plates in steam drum, §. Name of maker of plates in shell of boiler, whether steel or iron, Norway iron and steel, Vassa steel. Do. in 50 60 999 (John A. -Direct.) io furnaces, and whether steel or iron, steel. Tensile strength of plates in shell to the square inch, 60,000 pounds. Per cent, odd strength of plate at longitudinal joint, as compared to the solid plate, 64 plates, 168 rivet. Diameter and pitch of rivets in longitudinal joint, fx2^. Whether butt or lap joint, butt. Double or single- riveted, double, 4 rows. Whether double or single butt straps, double. Whether rivet holes are drilled or punched, drilled. Whether burrs are removed, burrs removed. "Stays, Steam Drum:—Number and size of stays in steam drum head, 1, 1^ diameter. To what secured, shell to head. Size of opening in shell in steam drum, 12,' § drilled holes. Strength of shell within steam drum, equal. Stay power in shell of boiler. No. and diameter of through bolts from end to end of boiler, \\ dia. 6 number. Mean stay strength per square inch of boiler, compared to strength of cylindrical shell at longitudinal joints, equal to pressure and shell 20 power. "General Remarks:—Age of boiler, by whom made, 1 year, Albion Iron Works, Victoria. Class, good, fairly good, Indifferent, bad, good. What provision for cleaning, good. How often cleaned, as required. Reductions below full standard of strength, none. "Boiler Fittings, Safety Valves, &c.:—No. and size of locked safety valves, spring or lever, 1, 3. Size of steel, No. of coils, and length of spring when opened, f, 9 coils, 11 long. Area of locked Aalve to square foot of grate, do. open valves, 3° \ to each square foot, \ to each square foot. Area of opened locked valves to square foot of grate, 1 to each square foot. No. of try cocks and height of lowest above highest heating surface, 3, 2\. No. of steam gauges, 2. No. water glass do., 1. Range of do. do., 9. "Boiler Test, Test and Condition of Boilers:—Hydraulic test pressure in pounds per square inch, 160 pounds. State of boiler under same, whether good, fairly good, indifferent or bad, good. Working pressure allowed, 110 pounds. Ad- 0 justment of safety valves, by whom, when last adjusted, Avhether under steam or by water pressure, same time as test under water by E. S. Viger. Were the boilers cleaned previous to test, yes. Were they examined, yes. Were they examined inside and by whom, yes. Were they examined outside and by whom, yes, E. S. Viger. The inspector will here state the condition in which he finds the boilers; if neglected and badly used, b3' whom, very good. Boiler bed, in what material laid, is the bottom wet or dry, timbers cased with iron. Cradle fastenings, 1\ through bolts. Holding down 50 bolts and braces, and to what secured, braces to timbers. Hand pump for supplying and testing boilers when steam is not up. Diameter and stroke, 4x6. I may mention there is no statement of the engine, I can take it out of one of the other ones. Q.—Do you know as a matter of fact that the engine was a duplicate, practically, of that in the "Grace"? A.—Oh, yes, I know it was; and it is in one of the other ones. 6° Q.—How in one of the other ones? A.—A year back. Sir C. H. Tupper:—Perhaps that would be admitted; it is a fact that they were duplicates. Mr. Dickinson:—I am perfectly willing that he should read from the other inspection. Sir C. H. Tupper:—Will you turn to the nearest inspection? 1000 (John A. Thomson—Direct—Cross.) The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do I understand this boiler was only a year old? -A year old in 1885, and it was a steel Sir C. H. boiler. "upper :- 10 Witness:—I haven't got it. Q.—Can you get it? A.—I can get it. q.—will you be good enough to look for the nearest inspection to this date? A.—Of course I could furnish what is here. Q.—Will you be good enough to bring us that other record. In the absence of that do you know sufficient of the engine of the "Dolphin" to give me the same opinion as to the boiler and engine of that ship as you did as to the others? A.— $3,400. Q.—Do you take into consideration the steel boiler? A.— 20 Yes, sir, $3,400 or $3,500. Q—Would you make the same calculation as to horse power as you made in the case of the "Grace"? A.—This boat ought to indicate more. Q.—Speaking generally, much more? A.—Might gain three or four horse power, three anyhow; might be more. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Why would it indicate more? A.—There is a difference between 110 pounds' pressure than 80, to begin with; and it is also a ,_ larger boiler. Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: Q.—And the pressure allowed has something to do with your arriving at the horse power? A.—The actual horse power. Q.—I desire to ask the witness one question as to the "Thornton." By whom was the boiler and engine built, as appears by the books—the "Thornton"? A.—By Robertson, Victoria,—the boiler. 40 Q.—Now, as to the engine? A.—There was no record of that. Q.—As to the "Thornton," the name of the maker, plates and shell of boiler, Bloomfield. Does Bloomfield indicate the maker? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And the same is true of the furnaces? A.—Well, yes, that would be the same. Q.—The same information as to furnaces built by Bloomfield? A.—That is the maker of the plate itself. Q.—I am in some little confusion as to your method of ar- 5° riving at the actual horse-power. According to your explanation of the difference between the actual horse-power as you arrived at it, and the registered horse-power in the "Thornton" case, I understod you to state that the pressure allowed would have nothing to do with your statement of the horse power of the engine? A.—That is nominal horse power, or what is on the register.. Q-—You do not mean to be understood that if the capacity of the hydraulic test of the boiler would permit 100 pounds, go and the permitted pressure was the 52, that the horse power of the engine would be the same whether the pressure was 100 or 52? A.—Oh, not the actual horse power, but the nominal horse power on the registry would be the same. " Q.—When you stated the actual horse power, did you state the actual horse power at the permitted pressure? A.—Yes, sir, mark you, I would wish to state that my statement of the actual horse power is only approximate, and can onlv be so because the'data I haA'e is verv scant. q _But I understood you in the "Thornton" case that the actual power you could arrive at from the measurements appearing, in your books, and of the actual horse power, was always far "in excess of the registered horse power? A.—Undoubtedly so. Q.—Now, you estimated the actual horse power of the "Anna Beck" at about the same actual horse power as the "Thornton." you said 15 power and the "Thornton" 13 and 15? A.— The "Anna Beck" would be a little more than the "Thornton." q._You stated the "Thornton" would be 13 or 15? A.— This would be a little more; one or two horse power. q.—Well, now, in the case of the "Anna Beck" you estimated the engine at about the same value and about the same time, did you not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—But in the "Anna Beck" case the registered horse power is 9, while in the "Thornton" the registry is but 1 and 2-10ths? A.—Well, I can't help that. Q.—You see that with the best intentions of understanding you get into some doubt. Is there any explanation? A.— None that I know of, only it must be an error, for they are the same size of engines. Q.—You do not examine for registry? A.—I do, yes. Q.—Does your office do the inspection for the purposes of British registry here? A.—1 don't do it in Victoria, I do in outlying districts. Q.—They have a surveyor here who does the inspection for 3° the purposes of registry, do they not? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Competent official? A.—He is Mr. Walker. Q.—And as far as you know, in your residence here, the>se officials have always been competent? A.—So far as I know. Q.—I notice in the case of the next vessel, which was the "Grace," you stated, I think, that the actual horse power in the case of the "Grace," from your records, was 25? A.— Yes, sir. Q.—And the value of the engine and boilers is about how much? A.—That is the "Gra.ce," did you say? Q.—Yes. A.—About 32, I think. Q.—$3,200? A.—Yes. Q-—And your valuation of the "Thornton" is about $2 800' A.—$2,700, I think. Q-—And the "Grace" is registered at 15 horse pow< —Yes. Q.—Now, in 3'our business, when engaged in the purchase or manufacture of engines, or in the places where you have done business, is the value of the engine and machinery SO graduated at all by the number of horse power? A.—That ii will indicate. Q.—It is predicated upon the horse power? A.—Quite so. Q-—The registered horse power? A.—Oh, no. Q.—The actual horse power? A.—Indicated horse power. Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper-. Q-—You were about to say that you were measuring surveyor as well, for the purposes of registration of British ships. You were not in Victoria; where do you work? A.—In the outlying districts. Q-—Outlying districts of British Columbia? A.—Yes, my commission covers the whole Province. Ihe other surveyor's are only local surveyors, surveyors for the port of Victoria, port of New Westminster and port of Vancouver. ; Q.—But you hold a commission for the Province? A. For the Province. 1002 (John A. Thomson—Re-direci Q- Th. Magnesen—Direct.) And act outside of "the particular localities for which yiij';* are appointed? A.—Yes. Q.—How long have you held that position? A.—Since 1891,1 think. Q.—The boiler and engine of the "Thornton"—you spoke only as to the maker of the boiler upon these records, and that appeared to be whom? A.—Robertson. io about the engine A.—The en- Q.—Did you say anythin£ gine was made, by Cowan. Q.—-You spoke of haying scanty information in reaching the horse power. Will you definitely state what information you would require to make a more careful estimate of the horse power of these vessels? A.—The only proper way that you could arrive at it definitely would be by taking the guards off. • Q.—And what percentage would you be out with the material you have? A.—I don't suppose I would be out more 20 than one or two horsepower. It is under, not over. Q.—What-do you mean by over? A.—It is not over stated. Mr. Dickinson:—May it please the High Commissioners, the counsel for Great Britain consent that one witness who was 3° in town for a very short period and must leave to-night, and Avho is in the court room may be put on by us as to the general catch. Theodore Magnesen, was called as a witness on the part of the United States and duly sworn, his evidence being taken out of order in the "Carolena" case by consent: Direct examination by Mr. Lansing: Q.—Captain Magnesen, were vou.sealing in 1890? A.— 4° Yes. Q.—On what vessel? A.—On the "Sea Lion." Q.—In what capacity? A.—As master. Q.—What was the tonnage of the "Sea Lion?" A.—52 tons. Q.—How was she outfitted? A.—She Avas outfitted with five boats. Q.—Stern boat? A.—No. Q.—What was your crew? A.—18 all told, including myself. Q.—From what port did you sail? A.—I sailed first from Victoria to San Francisco, and there I fitted out and started sealing. Q.—Did you seal in Behring Sea? A.—I did. Q.—What time did you enter the Sea? A.—About the 10th or 13th of July? Q._What time did you leave the Sea? A.—On the 14th of September. Q.—What locality did you seal in? A.—Sealed to the west- 6o ward of the Islands. Q.—What was your catch in Behring Sea? A.—718. Q.—What boat were you on in 1889? A.—I was on the "Minnie." Q.—And in 1888? A.—I was not sealing. Q.—Did you, in 1889, keep a record of the catch of the "Minnie?" A.—I did. Q.—Have you got that record now? A.—No, I handed it over to Captain Jacobsen. So IO 20 (Theo. Magnesen—Direct—Cross.) Q.—How long ago? A.—So soon as we arrived in Victoria, that would be in September, 1889. Q.—What is the full name of Jacobsen? A.—Victor J. Jacobsen. Q.—HaA'e you seen the book since? A.—No, I haven't. Q.—Do you know where Jacobsen is now? A.—I can't tell. Q.—Has he spoken to you about it? A.—He did say he couldn't find it, he didn't know where they were gone to, hettunks he gave them to Belyea, he says in making up his claim, and he hasn't seen them since. Q.—What time did you leave the Sea in 1889, captain? A. —On the 17th of August. ' Mr. Dickinson:—In the "Minnie," is that? Witness:—In the "Minne." Q.—She was warned, was she not? A.—She was seized. Q.—When was that? A.—On the 15th of July. Q.—Are you going to be back here again, captain? A.- Yes, I will be back in three or four days. Q.—Will you report here in three or four days? A.—I will, yes. The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— Where does the witness belong? Witness:—I live right here, sir, my family is right here. Mr. Peters:—Then you are not through with this witness yet? 40 50 30 Mr. Dickinson:—We may call him in the case of the "Minnie. Cross-examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Captain Magnesen, you were in the "Sea Lion" in 1890 • as master? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Do you live in Victoria always? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—And you are going away this winter sealing? A.—I am going down the coast for three or four days. Q.—Just on a trip? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Really nothing important at all, except you are going away for two or three days? A.—Just for two or three days. Q.—You were in the "Sea Lion" in 1890; have you a log of it? A.—I did keep a log. Q.—Where is it? A.—Handed it over to Captain Jacobsen at Victoria. Q.—The "Sea Lion"—I want the log of the "Sea Lion?" A. —It is in my house. Q.—Did 3'ou keep a sealing book? A.—I did. Q.—Did you enter the seals in your log? A.—I did not. Q.—Anel 3'ou destroyed your seal book?. A.—I can't tell you. Q.—How long ago? A.—Several years ago, I think, Q.—Tell me just why you destroyed it? A.—I didn't think it was any good. 60 Q.—Did you make an entry of your seals when you came to Victoria? A.—I think I did. Q.—Did you come into Victoria with your seals? A.—Yes. Q.—The whole of them? A.—Yes. Q.—Were they all caught in Behring Sea? A.—What I brought home, yes, sir. Q.—And how many did you bring home? A.—Well, to the best of my knowledge I think it was 718. Q.—And how many did you bring home? A.—None. RWI 1004 Theo. Magnesen—Cross. G. F. Grant—Direct.) Q.—Did you bring home all you caught? A.—Certainly. Q.—And you caught them all in Behring Sea? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—During what time? A.—Between the 12th of July and the 14th of September. Q.—You are coming back here in three or four days? A. —Yes. io Q,—To be examined here again? A.—Yes. Q.—Will you be kind enough to bring your log? A.—Yes. Q.—How many seals did you catch in September? A.— Quite a few. Q.—What do you call quite a few? A.—Well, of that catch of 700 seals, I think I caught about 300 in September. Q.—And when did you leave the Sea in September? A.— I left it on the 14th. Q.—So that from the first to the 14th you caught 300 seals? A.—I think so, pretty near. 20 Q.—And you did not have very good hunters that year, did you? A.—No, I had two green hunters. Q.—And the others were not A'ery old hunters, were they? A.—Yes, one was. Q.—One was an old hunter? How many hunters had you altogether? A.—Five. Q.—Two were green; one was pretty old? A.—No. Q.—And the others were middling, were they? A.—Yes, something like that. Q.—So that so far as hunters were concerned you were not 3° so well supplied as some of the others? A.—Nothing extra, no. Q.^—You had five boats, you told us? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Was there pretty good weather in September? A.— September was fine, the first part of September. Q.—In fact you did better work in September than you did in August? A.—Yes, I did nothing in August, nor in July either. It was too stormy. Q.—So that these people who tell us you cannot fish in September on account of the weather, they don't know anything 4° about it, do they, Captain? A.—Oh, no, you can get lots of seals in September. Q-—We will have your log? A.—All right, sir, I'll bring Q.—You can also take a look to see whether you are sure you destroyed the seal book? A.—Yes, I am certain, sure, I did. Gordon F. Grant was recalled as a witness on the part of Great Britain. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—You heard the evidence of Mr. Thomson as to the boiler and engine of the three steamers, the "Grace," "Dolphin" and "Anna Beck"? A.—Yes, sir. 6o Q-—In respect to the opinion he gave as to the value, what difference would that be between him and you? You heard the description of the boiler and engine of the different ships? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—About what value would you place on the boiler and engine on the "Grace"? A.—I should say that the "Grace" would be worth about $3,500. Q.—And the "Dolphin"? A.—The "Dolphin" was the same class as the "Grace." No cross-examination William Turpel was recalled as a witness' on the part of Great Britain. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Sir C. H. Tupper:—This witness is called in the 1887 cases —the cases of the "Grace, "Sayward," and I would like to transfer all his evidence previously taken into this record, except so far as it is obviously inapplicable. Q.—Mr. Turpel, you knew the "Grace" and Dolphin"? A. Yes, I have seen them. Q.—What would you say would be a fair value of those vessels in 1886, take the "Grace," what was her tonnage? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—I am frank to say, Sir Charles, that the evidence of this witness would not have much weight on my mind, unless you qualify him in a more specific way than by asking him generally if he knew them. Sir C. H. Tupper:—My recollection is that this witness was examined considerably as to his connection with the ships. , The Commissioner on the part of the United States:— These particular ships? Sir C. H. Tupper:—Perhaps not. (To witness): Q.—Did you know anything of the "Grace"? A.- seen the ship. Q.—Where did 3'ou see her? A.—Seen her in Victoria. Q.—Have you had any work upon her? A.—Not any work. Q.—On the "Dolphin?" A.—No. Q.—On the "Anna Beck?" A.—No. , Q.—Then any opinion you would give would be your rough 60 estimate of their value? A.—That would be all. Q.—How often had you seen them before they were seized in 1887? A.—Well, I have seen them quite often, I suppose, I never have taken any particular notice, the one built over on the other side, I knew berr Q._Which was that? A.—The one that Mr. Smith built, the "Grace." I wouldn't say whether the "Grace" or the "Dolphin." Q.—Built by whom? A—Mr. Smith, ioo6 I'll 111 IO 20 3° 40 (Wm. Turpel—Direct—Cross.) Q.—And when did you first see the "Dolphin?" A.—Well, I seen her while she was being built. Q.—Where Avas she built? A.—She was built over at Rock Bay. . Q.—You were then familiar with the A'essel when she was being built? . A.—Oh, yes, quite often I went around there when they was building her. Q.—Did you see her after she was completed? A.—Yes, saw her after she was launched and rigged. Q.—What value would you put upon that vessel then when 3'ou saw her launched and rigged? A.—Well, taking it generally, what it cost me to build my schooner, I think she would be $8,000 or $9,000. Q.—That is Avithout the steam? A.—I ain't speaking of the steam. Q.—Are 3'ou able to speak of her with steam as well? A.— Not at all,. I am not posted as to steam. Q.—You prefer to speak of her simply as she was built and launched as a schooner? A.—Yes. Q.—Did you see the- "Grace" built? A.—No. Q.—Did you see her after she was built? A.—I seen her in the harbour. Q.—There is not much difference, is there, between the two? -V.—I couldn't say, to compare the two together from memory, I never Avorked on her. Q.—About how often have you seen her? A.—Passing through the habour and around the water front a good deal, I used to see her quite often. Q.—Taking your opinion for what it is worth on that score, from AA'hat you saw of her, what would you say would be a fair value, what would be your opinion of her value as a schooner without the steam? A.—I don't know whether I could put a price on her or not. Q.—Have you seen the "Anna Beck" often? A.—Probably I might, but I don't have much recollection of the "Anna Beck." Q.—Then you do not want to put a figure on her? A.—No. q.—Do you know anything of the "Sayward?" A.—Yes, I know the Sayward. q.—What have you had to do with her? A.—I have done a lot of work on her. Q.—So that you knew the Sayward pretty well in 1887. Now, what would be a fair value for her in 1887? A.—I should think a fair value would certainly be $7,000 or $8,000. She was a pretty good schooner. So Cross-examination by Mr. Dickinson: A.—No, Q.—Did you work on the "Dolphin, did you say? I never worked on her. Q.—Ever on her? A.—I never was to my knowledge. When they was building her I was aboard of her. Q.—I do not mean the "Sayward," I mean the "Dolphin," you have just testified about the "Sayward." Now, were you on the "Dolphin" and "Sayward" both? _ A.—During the time that the 'Dolphin" was getting built, I was aboard of 6° her, no doubt about it, and in the yard several times when they were building her. Q.—When was the "Dolphin" built? A.—1888. Q.—You are quite sure 3'ou were not aboard of her in one of the two years, 1888-1889 ? A.—1 \Aras aboard of her during the time she was buibling, bul Ihe date I couldn't say. Q.—When did you go aboard of the "Sayward?" A.—That is when she was on the stocks, when the3T were putting the deck frame in. ioo7 IO 20 30 (Wm. Turpel—Cross—Re-direct. J. A. Thomson- Q—When? A.—I ain't got the.date of it. One night, Mr. Smith, the gentleman sitting here, and I went out in a boat and took a good survey of her. Q.—After she was afloat? A.—No, when she was on the stocks. She was built right out at Laing's ways. Q.—Did you look over the "Dolphin?" A.—Not particularly. Q.—You, I think, had a ship yard in 18.88 and 1889? A.— Yes, I think I had the Star ship yard in 1888 and 1889. Q.—Tell us again, the ship that you built, your own? A. —Well, I had quite a number. Q.—The one you built for yourself? tug boats Q.—The ship you built for yourself? pel." Q.—Did you build any other ship? Belle," a duplicate of the "Sayward." Q.—When did you build her? A.- Q.—In your testimony, I suppose, you were giving values from your knowledge of cost? A.—From what I knew from experience. Q.—From cost? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—You are estimating the cost of these ships, are you not? A.—Yes, that's right. Q.—You have not bought or sold ships, your business is merely ship building? A.—Ship building and repairing. Q.—You are still in that business? A.—Yes, sir. Q.—Have a yard of your own? A.—Yes. Q.—And now have a yard of your own? A.—Yes, I have my marine railroad still. A.—There was four A.—The "Sadie Tur- A.—I built the "May -That would be 1891. 40 Re-direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper: Q.—You were asked about the "May Belle," you built that vessel in 1891? A.—1891, yes sir. Q.—You said that she was built off the "Sayward" mould, or after the "Sayward" style. A;—Yes, she was a duplicate? The Commissioner on the part of the United States:—Do you mean this "Sayward? Witness:—Yes, the "W. P. Sayward.' At 5 p.m.. the Commissioners rose. SO Commissioners under the Convention of February 8, 1896, Between Great Britain and the United States of America Chambers'of the Legislative Assembly, At Victoria, December 31, 1896 At 10:30. a.m., the Commissioners took their seats. The Commissioners proceeded with the cases of the "W. P. Go Sayward," the "Anna Beck," the "Grace" and the "Dolphin." John A. Thomson Avas recalled as a witness on the part of Great Britain. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper:— Q.—Mr. Thomson, have you found the book you promised to look for containing the inspections of the '^Dolphin ?" A.^- Yes, sir.. 10 20 30 40 So (J. A. Thomson—Direct. S. McC. Smith—Direct.) Q.—What date have you before the 1st May, 1883? A.— February 4th, 18S2. Q.—Who kept those records? A.—Thomas Westgarth, the then Inspector of boilers and machinery. Q.—How were his books kept?. A.—Particularly exact. / Q.—Does the first entry to which you refer relate to the same boiler and engine? A.— I presume not, because the "Dolphin's engine, in 1885, was only one year old. Q.—Give us the record of May 1st, 1883, to which you have referred. Mr. Dickinson:—That is what is not in the inspection of yesterday, Sir C. H. Tupper:—Quite so. Direct examination by Sir C. H. Tupper continued: Q-—Please give us that record of May 1st, 1883, to which 3'ou have referred? A.—I may say that the particulars of the engines in these old books are not very clearly kept; there Avere not items put down for that purpose except simply the size of the cylinders; there are no specifications of the shaft, or boilers, the same as in the books of the preceding years. Q.—Give us that record with reference to the engine. A. —"Engine, one compound (condensing); diameter of one cylinder, 12 inches; of the other 6 1-2 inches; stroke, 12 inches." It goes from that to the fire engine. After giving the size of the cylinders there are no more particulars about the engine at all. The only things relating to the engine are: Fire pump, steam pony pump, the pitch and diameter of the screw, and the revolutions of the engine. Q.—What was the capacity of that? A.—"Fire engine, one; six inches diameter on deck; dianmter of pitch by screw, 4 feet in diameter, six feet six inches pitch; revolutions of engine.1, 150." That is all the particulars e>f the engine that are giA'en; the rest is Avith reference to the boiler. Q.—Which of these vessels had certificates, under the act relating to the inspection of steamboats, permitting them to carry passengers? A.—According to the ree*ord there were 50 deck passengers allowed for the "Dolphin " Q.—And which other was allowed to carry passengers? A.—I think the "Grace." The number of passengers allowed on the "Grace," "No state room," was 25. The Commissioner on the part of Her Majesty:—That is in the latest survey? The Witness:—Yes, sir, in 1885. Mr. Dickinson:—I have no cross-examination. 60 Samuel McCulloch Smith was recalled as a witness on the part of Great Britain. Mr. Peters:—With regard to this witness I desire his evidence in the "Carolena" case and subsequently to be transferred to these cases, except where it is obviously inapplicable. Direct examination by Mr. Peters: Q.—Will you tell us what you had to do with the building of the "Dolphin?" A.—I was employed by Captain Warren to superintend the building of her as master workman, and was on the work from the beginning of it to the completion. Q.—When was that? A.—The beginning of the job was in 1881 and the finish in 1882, I think. <X-^
Other Copies: http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26631401
Legislative proceedings
English
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
[Washington] : Government Printing Office
Images provided for research and reference use only. For permission to publish, copy, or otherwise distribute these images please contact digital.initiatives@ubc.ca.
Original Format: University of British Columbia. Library. Rare Books and Special Collections. JX238 .F83 1890
Bering Sea controversy
Sealing--Bering Sea
Seizure of vessels and cargoes
Behring Sea Claims Commission. Record of evidence taken at Victoria, British Columbia, by the commissioners, under the convention of February 8, 1896, between Great Britain and the United States. Vol. I
Text