286 ORAL ARGUMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ROBINSON, Q. C. 



know what oilier facts never disclosed by these records may have 

 transpired"? It is permitting one party to lay before the Tribunal a 

 partial view when it is not in our power to comi)lete the view. That is 

 the objection, and it is a serious one; and that is the reason why it was 

 provided by the Treaty that the place, and the only place, in which evi- 

 dence was to be contained is the Case and Counter Case. It is, on 

 that that we ground our objection; that we ought not to be put to the 

 trouble, that we ought not to be put to the injustice, that we ought not 

 to be pat to the inequality, of having a partial fact laid before this 

 Tribunal when we have had no opiiortuuity and can have none to lay 

 before the Tribunal such other additional facts as may belong to it and 

 which must be regarded in order to arrive at a proper understanding. 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — I do notintend to answer the observations 

 that have been made, Mr. President, except to remind you of what the 

 circumstances are. In the United States Case they asserted that 

 Russia had claimed to exercise the jurisdiction of seizing ships outside 

 the three mile limit. That correspondence between Russia and Great 

 Britain respecting the modus vivendi has already been admitted, and, 

 not onlj^ admitted, but referred to by Mr. Phelps, he stating he intended 

 to argue upon it. 



The President. — Facts already incorporated in the documents before 

 Tribunal, which is not quite the same thing. 



Sir EiCHAED Webster. — These were papers not incorporated in the 

 documents. It was a Parliamentary paper handed in last week and to 

 which Mr, Phelps referred, saying he intended to rely upon it. We 

 informed the United States that at no time had Russia made this claim 

 the Attorney General made a statement to the Tribunal publicly with 

 reference to the fact that Russia had agreed to indemnify ships that 

 had not been inside the territorial waters, and that statement being 

 made, Mr. Phelps got up and said — he will endorse what I say — that 

 in the previous debate in the House of Lords, not a week ago, Lord 

 Rosebery had not referred to it — was he at liberty to refer to that debate 

 and I said Yes, to any documents public or otherwise supporting his 

 contention Mr. Phelps might refer. You interposed. Sir, and said I had 

 gone too far and it was only j)ublic documents that ought to be referred 

 to, and called attention to the fact that the telegram to the Attorney 

 General was in the nature of a private document and not public I then 

 informed you. Sir, feeling the weight of what you said, I would ascertain 

 if the papers were going to be presented to Parliament. 



They have been presented to Parliament, and I, having given copies 

 to my learned friends, make good my promise by presenting them before 

 the Tribunal, I say that it is not new evidence at all. It is simply to 

 show the Tribunal the real facts respecting the action of Russia. 



Lord Hannen. — Suppose Russia are under some terms with reference 

 to compensation, has that any bearing on the enquiry we are going 

 into. 



Sir Richard Webster. — It has no bearing at all. 



Lord Hannen. — Then why go into it? 



Sir Richard Webster. — If your Lordship will pardon me except 

 the United States have introduced into their argument a statement that 

 Russia has claimed to exercise these rights outside territorial waters. 

 It is not a question of bargain at all. .1 told the Court before, the mat- 

 ter was investigated by a special commission, and the documents will 

 show what the actual claims of Russia have been in regard to the mat- 

 ter. It is only to prevent the Tribunal being under a misapprehension 

 in consequence of an inadvertent statement made the United States, 



