530 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 



the British Commissioners in sui^port of their previous conclusions 

 might be adopted by my learned friends as ])avt of their argument, and, 

 to that we had no objection whatever, but here my friend is reading 

 new and additional statements of fact, which are either evidence or 

 else they are utterly totally immaterial. We object to those being 

 considered as a part of the evidence in this case. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I only desire to say that I propose to read 

 (in strict accordance with the decision of the Tribunal) this summary 

 of the evidence referred to as obtained by them in 1891, and all the 

 evidence in 1892 (which is in the Counter Case) as a part of my argu- 

 ment. I understood that to be distinctly in accordance with the 

 decision of the Tribunal, but I only wish to say — I am not going to 

 argue the matter at greater length — that if the Tribunal give me the 

 slightest indication — 



Mr. Phelps. — Might I ask my friend where this statement of Greb- 

 nitsky of what he gathered from the Kussian cruisers is to be found 

 except there? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I think my learned friend, Mr. Phelps, 

 while Mr. Williams was speaking to him, was not paying attention to 

 me. I stated that that was evidence obtained by the British Commis- 

 sioners in the year 1891, upon which they made their statement. I did 

 not say that that was in the appendix. 



Mr. Phelps. — My question was whether the evidence uj)on which 

 they base this statement is to be found in this case anywhere, or 

 whether it is supplied in support of a statement which we claim to 

 have disputed. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — It is found in the statement made by the 

 Commissioners themselves. 



Lord Hannen. — Where is it to be found? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — As far as I know it is a statement made by 

 the Commissioners. 



Lord Hannen. — Where is that statement to be found? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — At page 24. 



Lord Hannen. — Of the Supplemental Eeport? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — Yes. 



Mr. Carter, — And no where else. 



Lord Hannen. — Mr. Phelps was trying to ascertain where it appeared 

 upon the record. You say in the Supplemental Eeport. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — It did not appear before aud the report 

 says so. 



Lord Hannen. — It is the only evidence of the statement. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — The statement appeared that there was 

 intermingling — I will refer to that in a moment. 



In the original report the British Commissioners stated that in their 

 opinion the two herds intermingled j they had not stated the evidence 

 and they proceeded to say this : 



In our previous report as the existence of a certain amount of intermingling had 

 never been questioned, it Avas not considered necessarj- to note in detail the evidence 

 and the observations upon which the general statements made were based. 



Lord Hannen. — Well, you might adopt that into your argument — 

 that that was the reason yyhj they did it. Now what is the next 

 statement? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — The next statement is this — that they now 

 state what was the information that they had obtained in 1891 upon 

 which they drew their conckision, they having had no reason to state it 

 before, because rightly or wrongly they did not think this matter would 



