ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 49 



Sir Charles E-ussell. — Certaiuly, the fact you are required to find 

 must carry with it the coiKsequeuce that the seizures were wrou^ful. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Is it the fact that they did or did not do it in 

 violation of the law? — is that a fact? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I thiuk it is. 



The President. — Well, I think we will let you argue your point; 

 but this Tribuual must reserve for further consideration whether they 

 will or not take it as a fact. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I will also respectfully reserve to myself 

 the right of supportiug my views, because, knowing what was to be 

 found in the Counter-Case of the United States, I really did not antici- 

 pate that there would be auy difference between us on this j)oint. It is 

 the first time that it has been suggested to me. 



Now I want to call attention to page 133 of the Counter-Case in this 

 connection. I merely refer to it to show that they discuss the questions 

 referred to by my learned friend, Mr. Phelps, suggesting that some of 

 these vessels are not British-owned vessels, and they take the point 

 which my learjied friend Mr. Coudert reiterated the other day, that no 

 damages can be awarded for prospective piotits, on the ground that 

 they were too remote. My learned friends made the argument under a 

 misapiirehension, I think, of the Geneva decision ; and then upon page 

 134 they insist that the damages claimed are excessive; and then comes 

 the final passage, to which I especially desire to call attention. 



The United States do uot deem it Becesaary to state in detail wherein the valua- 

 tions and damages claimed are excessive and exaggerated, or submit proofs in relation 

 thereto, further than by the analysis of said claims found in the Ajipendix to this 

 their Counter Case, at page 33!:), for the reason — 



Now this is their reason. — 



That the "questions of fact involved in the claim" of either of the parties to the 

 Treaty against the other, to be submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration under the 

 provisions of Article VIII, should, as this Article is understood by the United States, 

 have relation only to such facts as tend to lix the liability of one party to the other, 

 and do not include facts which relate to the amounts of such claims. 



Mr. Pheli'S. — Certaiuly. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Showing that the United States took 

 778 the view that Lord Hannen has been good enough to exj^ress as 

 to what was the limitation of this matter. 



The President. — If it is more convenient for you to proceed with 

 your argument, it is understood that the Tribuual reserves for further 

 consideration the question which has been mootetU 



Lord Hannen. — If I may put this question to you, Mr. Phelps; it 

 would assist my understanding, at least, of the point in diffeience 

 between you, if you could with proi>riety answer this question: Do you 

 consider that we finding the facts, tlie United States would in the future 

 negotiations whicli would take place as to liability be bound by our 

 decision of i)rinciple upon the first four questions, or would it still be 

 open to them to say, upon the facts found, we still maintaiu that we are 

 not liable to pay damages lor any seizure? 



Mr. Phelps. — That is a question, my Lord, that I am not prepared 

 at this moment, to express an opinion upon. 



Lord Hannen. — Very well, x)erhaps you will consider it. 



Mr. Phelps. — I may say that our view of article VIII has been sim- 

 ply this: that any facts which either party requested the Tribunal to 

 find and establish by proof, bearing upon the question of claim for these 

 seizures, would be passed upon and found as might be right by the 

 Tribunal; and thus the whole subject of the liability of the Government 



B S, PT XIII 4 



