FORTY-SECOND DAY, JUNE 21^1", 1893. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — Mr. President, before my learned friend 

 Mr. Eobiusou begins, you will remember that wlien the Attorney Gen- 

 eral communicated to you the fact of a communication having been 

 made from the Foreign Ofiflce as to the Eussiau seizures, objection was 

 taken by my learned friend, Mr. Phelps, that the communication was 

 not public or official; and you were good enough to call attention, when 

 I was addressing you, to the fact that however much you might, of 

 course, believe what we had stated in the matter it was not a public 

 document and, therefore, reference could not be made to it properly. I 

 told you I had no doubt the Papers would be presented to Parliament 

 in a few days. They were presented yesterday, and I have handed my 

 learned friend copies. Copies will be supplied to the Tribunal, though 

 we have not sufficient at preseut I believe, and I may state on page 



5, 



Mr. Carter. — One moment; do you read the contents as evidence? 



Because if so, we object to the reception of this matter. The ground 

 of our objection. Sir, is that it is new evidence designed to prove some 

 new fact or other; and, therefore, does not come within provisions of 

 the Treaty, that the only way in which the Treaty contemplates evi- 

 dence is to be received by this Tribunal is that it should be incorporated 

 in the Case or Counter Case, and that this, therefore, is not admissible. 



The President.— I would say that we do not admit fresh evidence, 

 and it is not as evidence that we would like to take it. I do not believe 

 it is within our proper power, however, to prevent anybody from read- 

 ing anything that may be read in the newspapers of what happened 

 that day or the day before. We simply take it as a newspaper commu- 

 nication; I do not say more than that. 



Mr. Carter. — With great deference, Sir, 



The President. — Do you object to that? 



Mr. Carter. — I should think it was in the power of this Tribunal 

 to prevent the reading of any newspaper in evidence, or to prevent the 

 reading of anything which is intended to bring before the Tribunal 

 any additional fact (that is, evidence) in reference to what may have 

 been done between Eussia and Great Britain in the way of adjustment 

 or settlement of a controversy. Our learned friends on the other side 

 have a way, which we are deprived of, by which they can bring those 

 matters before the Tribunal. 



If the objection is that they are of an unofficial character, they have 

 an easy method by simply laying them in the first instance before the 

 British House of Parliament now in Session, and having them printed 

 to give them an apparently official character. But the objection is to 

 the admission of new evidence, and lies as well to evidence of any offi- 

 cial character as any other. The impropriety, as I conceive it, is this; 

 it brings a fact i)artially before the attention of the Tribunal; and how 

 can we complete the record, and how can we furnish the additional 

 information that is necessary for its proper understanding unless we 

 have access to all the documents, which we have not? How do we 

 know what oral interviews may have been indulged in by the Eepre- 

 Bcnttvtives of Great Britain and Eussia in this matter? How do we 



285 



