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



The President. — We must reconsider the matter at any rate since 

 you intend to use tliose statements in your arguments on Eegulations. 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — Certainly. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — You postpone it until that time, do you? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — Upon the least intimation from the Tri- 

 bunal, I should do so. 



Lord Hannen. — 1 am very anxious, Mr. Phelps, so far as I can, 

 always to meet your views. Would it be objectionable if Sir Richard 

 referred to it, you having- noted the fact that the evidence was not con- 

 tained in anything which preceded the supplementary Eeport? We 

 bearing that in mind, would it inconvenience you that Sir Eichard 

 Webster should use it, with the comment made by you upon itf 



Mr. Phelps. — It is not a question of convenience if the Tribunal 

 please, at all — it is a question of right. The objection that we make is : 

 That neither under this Treaty, nor under the procedure of any Tri- 

 bunal that ever sat under the forms of law, is it allowable for a party 

 after the case is made up, the written argument comjilete, the oral 

 argument begun, to come in with a statement of new facts and new 

 evidence that is to be regarded by the Tribunal in determining the 

 issues of fact. 



Lord Hannen. — I had that fully in my mind. You have answered 

 by saying you stand on your strict rights, and do not treat it as a 

 matter of convenience. 



Mr. Phelps. — As a matter of course if it is not to be regarded, it 

 need not be read. If it is to be regarded, we are defenceless as far as 

 that is concerned. 



The President. — You object to the facts being stated, because you 

 have not had time or the capacity to control them. 



Mr. Phelps. — Certainly. 



Sir Eichard Webster. — Mr. Phelps' observation shows that he 

 really has not apprehended my position in the least. In paragraphs 

 452 and 456 of the original report the British Commissioners state the 

 fact that in their opinion, (rightly or wrongly) they come to the conclu- 

 sion that there was intermingling. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — That there tvas? 



Sir Eichard Webster. — Yes — intermingling. They did not state 

 the information they had obtained with regard to the matter. They 

 did state an amount of other information they had obtained, and the 

 United States Commissioners in their report equally state that. In 

 this supplementary Keport all they do is to give to the Tribunal the 

 information they then had upon which they formed the conclusion 

 which the Tribunal can criticise. 



Lord Hannen. — That raises the question of what Mr. Phelps insists 

 upon, whether or not it is not fresh evidence. 



Sir Eichard Webster. — Of course I do not want to argue this 

 again now — this was the whole matter we discussed on the previous 

 occasion. It is not a question of evidence — it is a question of informa- 

 tion before the Tribunal with regard to this question, depending x)artly 

 upon the conclusions people drew from certain facts. 



Sir John Thompson. — The British contention at that time only was 

 that this was admissible and capable of being used quoad Eegulations, 

 and you have not come to that stage of your argument yet. 



Sir Eichard Webster. — Eeally, one only regrets possibly that one 

 is involved in a contention which maybe thought to introduce questions 

 of difficulty to a greater extent than it does. I am willing from the i)oint 

 of view of i)roperty argument not to refer to this any more j but I must, 



