testimony that does not bear on the question, and is not of the least importance. Under the pretence of trying who owned the vessel in February, 1866, a letter containing matter concerning the vessel, not bearing upon the question of ownership, but which may be evidence on the merits, is offered to be thrust in. I do not object to any legitimate evidence going to prove ownership, but I do object to evidence bearing on the merits.

THE COURT. When was the seizure made?

WITNESS. In February, 1866.

THE COURT. The counsel will confine themselves as near as possible to that time.

MR. WEBSTER. Your Honor will perceive that with an interested witness, who claims to be part owner of this ship, and with my learned friend upon the other side, who objects to every question I put, making a very interesting argument upon it, it is difficult to arrive at once at the point which is in issue. The government proposes to establish that the claim filed by Mr. Cary is not true; that Mr. Robert B. Forbes and John M. Forbes are not the sole owners of this vessel. I propose to prove it directly and indirectly; and now, in my inability to get a direct answer from the witness to my questions, I go back how far? I go back four or five months prior to the seizure. I propose to arrive at the question of who owned this ship then; and I have a letter here, written by R. B. Forbes, in which he says he is unable to sell until he gets the consent of the other owners not his brother's consent, but, as he distinctly states, the consent of the other owners. was ownership in other persons, where is it now? The witness, .certainly, if this is an honest transaction, can have no objection to state the facts.

MR. EVARTS. There is not the least.

Now, if there

MR. WEBSTER. It is not necessary, then, for my learned friend to interrupt. Further than that, Mr. R. B. Forbes, in September, 1865, states distinctly that this vessel was constructed, and by implication paid for, by other persons than himself and John M. Forbes. I will read that portion of the letter which states that in September, 1865, there were other owners, and that they were aided in the construction by some friends.

MR. EVARTS. I do not object to the extracts which you have last mentioned the fact that he would have to consult other owners, and that the ship was built by himself and some friends.

These extracts from the letter were admitted, letter marked Ex. A.

MR. WEBSTER. The statement is, "I cannot name the price until I consult the other owners." Now, who were the other owners in September, 1865?

A. I do not know.

Q. You were a part owner of the Meteor in September, 1865, without knowing who were your other co-owners?

A. I think R. B. Forbes was owner then.

Q. And who else beside yourself?

A. I do not know of any other owner at that time but R. B. Forbes; but I have not had an opportunity to post myself up as to the record; I can only answer of my own knowledge who were the owners at the time of the seizure, on which I am prepared to testify.

Q. You say you cannot testify of your own knowledge as to the ownership of this vessel anterior to this seizure ?

A. I say I cannot go back as to dates beyond the register of the ship.

Q. When were there any other owners besides yourself and your brother, R. B. Forbes?

A. I do not know that there ever were.

Q. Do you know of any other owners besides yourself and R. B. Forbes in this steamer at any time?

A. I do not know of any.

Q. From whom did you get your interest in the ship?

A. I think, from the shipbuilder, and the engine-builder who put the engine in the ship, and whose bill I paid; the shipbuilder, who put the timbers together and put the engine in; I think, to the best of my belief, the title by which we hold the ship comes from the ship-builder at the time she was launched, and, I think, that then we owned the ship half-and-half, to the best of my belief.

Q. What explanation do you make of this statement of your brother, that in September, 1865, he could not name the price until he had consulted the other owners?

A. I do not know that I can make an explanation of his form of speech; in writing about the owners, he might very well have said he wanted to consult the other owners, instead of the other owner.

Q. But how do you account for his saying he should have to consult the other owners, when there was but one?

A. I think a man writing a letter in the way of business might use the word owners for owner in a hurry.

Q. Have you ever received a bill of sale from anybody for any portion of this ship, and when?

A. I cannot answer from my own personal knowledge; but I think the shipbuilder gave what is called a builder's bill of sale of the ship.

Q. You speak of a builder's certificate; I speak now of a bill of sale.

A. I know of no bill of sale except that; unless that is a bill of sale I do not know of any other.

Q. What explanation do you give of your brother's statement in this letter that she was built by himself and a few friends, using the plural number?

A. I will inquire whether I am bound to explain other people's statements. That is not my letter. I can make a great many conjectures.

Q. Have you any explanations to make about that statement? A. I should like the advice of my counsel as to how far I am bound to disclose my private affairs.

MR. WEBSTER. By all means.

MR. EVARTS. I can give it very publicly; it is wholly immaterial, so far as any issue here is concerned, or any right on the part of the government, for the witness to state who were the owners of this vessel, although it is entirely harmless, so far as his interests are concerned. He can state who were the owners of this vessel, as he understands and knows, and then state beyond all that he knows concerning any equitable or other interest, pecuniary, or of any other kind, which anybody else had in the business at that time. Now, that is all the government is entitled to. The whole legal question is, who were the legal owners at that time? That being stated, my learned friend asks, Had other people pecuniary interests of any kind in the ship, and what were they? The inquiry whether such a question is to be answered is a very natural one for a party examined in a forfeiture case to make. There is not the least objection, except that it is immaterial, and this objection I shall insist on. The legal title being disclosed, there is no objection to disclosing any beneficial or pecuniary interest; it is the roundaboutness of the thing that is objectionable to me, for I know the facts, at the time of the seiz

ure, will be such as to raise any question he wants to raise; but going into the past history of the vessel, it is impossible to prevent running into questions that touch the merits.

MR. WEBSTER. I have no possible desire, except to inquire and ascertain who are the owners of this vessel, and a very direct way to ascertain that, as the ship is so new, is to inquire who owned her at first, and follow the title down. That is what I propose to do, and if the witness assists me I can arrive at it in a very few moments.

THE COURT. Limit the inquiry as near as possible to the period of the seizure.

MR. WEBSTER. I will; I am now only four months from it. Q. Have you any explanation to make in respect to this statement, that she was built by R. B. Forbes and a few friends?

A. I would inquire of my counsel if I am obliged to answer that question; in other words, shall I tell who had an interest in this vessel at various times, or am I to be confined merely to the time of the seizure, as to direct or indirect interest?

MR. EVARTS. Anything that my learned friend can imagine to be ownership at the time of the seizure, I am willing to have proved. THE COURT. I do not impose, on either side, to define the exact time.

MR. EVARTS. It must be confined to the time the claim was put in. THE COURT. Is that time alleged in the libel or information? MR. WEBSTER. It was in February. But if the Court please, we are dealing with the question of ownership. The witness asks his counsel if he shall go back in regard to the direct or indirect interest in the vessel. Now, that is just what I want to submit to your Honor, in order that the Court may decide who has the legal ownership of this steamer. I have no possible desire to interfere with the business of so respectable a house as that of the Messrs. Forbes, of Boston. My only desire is, to lay before the Court the facts from which the District Attorney and the Court can make their deductions, as well as the counsel on the other side. Now, if the witness will state who had a direct or indirect interest in this vessel, from the time of her construction down to the time of her seizure, I venture to say I will have no more questions to ask ; and then, if he has any explanations as to how such interest was conveyed, whether, if A or B, in Boston, had an interest, it was conveyed to Mr. Forbes, that would be very important. What

--

possible objection can there be to the witness laying before your Honor the whole evidence as to ownership? Under the instructions of the learned District Attorney, I have but one purpose, to develop all the facts of direct and indirect interest, which can aid your Honor in deciding. We have arrived at this point, that the witness has intimated his knowledge of who had what he characterizes as an interest in this vessel. Now, what I desire is, to have the persons who had an interest from the time of her construction, or in September.

THE COURT. You do not mean the transient interest of merchants?

MR. WEBSTER. No; only what is called a fixed interest in the ship; to lay before your Honor just what the interest is. If you say, after the facts are before you, that it is too evanescent, that is one thing; but we do not wish the witness or the learned counsel on the other side to pass upon the important question of what kind of interest constitutes ownership.

Q. Now state who have had, what you call, direct and indirect interest in this vessel?

MR. EVARTS. That I object to. The question is, who had interest when we came into Court. Past interest is immaterial.

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. If we were trying the ownership of a horse, would we not have a right to take the ownership at a previous day and trace the title down? The counsel seems to suppose that the witness has a right to be asked the title on that day, and that that includes everything and every one.

MR. EVARTS. You may contradict him by cross-examination, or in any other way you choose; but that is the thing to be proved, and it has been decided half a dozen times.

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. There is a strange pertinacity in objecting to everything which is asked. Of course we wish to bring it into a reasonable compass; but there are circumstances alleged, veiling this whole transaction, which we wish to lay before your Honor. We have a right to take up a previous day and to sift the witness for the purpose of getting at the truth.

MR. EVARTS. He is your own witness.

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY. I cannot help that. He is interested, not only personally, but he is charged with an offence; and the rule is, that we may exercise all the rigors of cross-examination in such a case. Now, what I propose, is to take it up at a previous