ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 531 



be disputed, and tliat is, as I understand, (of course I am entirely in 

 the hands of the Tribunal with regard to this matter), a statement by 

 the Commissioners in exactly the same manner as that which was 

 stated in their original report, not of course controlled by rules of evi- 

 dence any more than the statement of the United States Commissioners, 

 but a statement of evidence they had before them from which they 

 drew their conclusions. The rest of the matter refers to that which is 

 in evidence. What I was reading when Mr. Phelps interposed was 

 the statement by the Commissioners of what they learned from Mr. 

 Grebnitsky. 



Mr. Carter. — The position of the learned counsel seems to be this: 

 that if there is any matter of fact in the possession of the British Com- 

 missioners at the time they drew their original Eeport, which matters 

 of fact are not contained in it and which are in the nature of evidence, 

 that they may now introduce that evidence of these matters of fact, and 

 for the reason that they were not then thought to be material. The 

 point is, that it is introducing new evidence, and the suggestion that it 

 was omitted by them at the time, because they did not think it to be 

 material, does not detract from the fact that it is still new evidence, and 

 that was excluded by this Tribunal, as we understood, when we debated 

 upon the question of the introduction of this report. 



Sir John Thompson. — It w^as not excluded. 



Mr. Carter. — It was excluded as evidence, and was allowed to be 

 adopted by way of argument. 



Sir John Thompson. — We reserved our decision as to whether it 

 should be received as evidence. 



Mr. Carter. — At all events it was not admitted. 



Sir John Thompson. — It was not received. 



Mr. Carter. — If the question still remains open, we make objection 

 now. 



Lord Hannen. — Were you going to add anything, Sir Eichard? 



Sir Richard Webster. — I was going to say this. As, of course, 

 this matter is of more importance upon the question of Kegulations 

 than it is upon this matter — but for the introduction of it by Mr. 

 Coudert I do not know that I should have referred to it — I was going 

 to read the decision of the Tribunal. I am reading now from page 192 

 of the revised report. 



It is ordered that the document entitled a supplementary Report of the British 

 Behring Sea Commissioners, dated January 31st 18i>3 and signed by George Baden- 

 Powell and George M. Dawson and delivered to the individual Arbitrators by the 

 Agent of Her Britannic Majesty on the 25th day of March 1893, and which contains 

 a criticism of, or argument upon, the evidence in the documents and papers previously 

 delivered to the Arbitrators, be not now received, with liberty, however, to Counsel 

 to adopt such document, dated January 3l8t 1893, as part of their oral argument; if 

 they deem proper. 



The question as to the admissibility of the documents or any of them, constituting 

 the appendices attached to the said document of January 31st 1893, is reserved for 

 further consideration. 



I have not referred at present — I am not going to refer to — any 

 appendices, but solely to the statement made by tlie Commissioners, 

 gentlemen of repute — as to the grounds upon which they made the 

 statement which I referred to in their original report. I do not like to 

 involve myself in matters of discussion and I submit I am within my 

 right. Of course I have other important matters to bring before the 

 Tribunal, and unless the Tribunal wished to adjourn formally to con- 

 sider it, I would rather postpone this matter for the j)resent. 



