8 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



are advising the Government of the United States on the very qnes- 

 tions dealt with or largely dealt with in the controversy now before this 

 Tribunal. These arc the grounds upon which I submit that we are 

 entitled to have this document; and I cannot doubt that if the Tribunal 

 or any portion of the Tribunal express its opinion (and I cannot doubt 

 that it must be in the minds of many of them) that it is but reasonable 

 and right that this document should be forthcoming and be judged 

 according to its merits by each member of this Tribunal, I cannot doubt 

 but that further objection to its production will be withdrawn. 



The President. — I would ask Sir Charles Eussell to be kind enough 

 to put his motion in writing and communicate it to the Secretary of the 

 Tribunal, so that we may have the exact words of the motion before us. 



Sir Charles Epssell. — Certainly. 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — I ask to be permitted. Sir, not to repeat, but 

 to supplement, the argument of my learned friend the Attorney General 

 by a reference to one or two other documents in evidence which strongly 

 enforce, in my respectful submission, his contention. You are aware 

 that by Article 3 of the Treaty the printed Case of each of the two 

 parties, accompanied by the documents, the official correspondence, and 

 other evidence on which each relies, shall be delivered in duplicate; and 

 you are further aware. Sir, that by the earlier clause of Article 4, within 

 3 months after delivery on both sides of the printed Case, each party 

 may in like manner deliver in duplicate to each of the Arbitrators, and 

 to the agent of the other party, a Counter Case, and additional docu- 

 ments, correspondence, and evidence, in reply to the Case, documents 

 and evidence, so presented by the other party". My learned friend, the 

 Attorney General, has called the attention of the Tribunal to the fact 

 that in the Appendix to the original British Case lodged in September 

 last, there was the best evidence that we could then obtain of the docu- 

 ments in question. It was that which purported to be, under the signa- 

 ture of M)'. Elliott, addressed to a Government official, verbatim extracts 

 of part, and but of part only, of his Report. 



Now, Sir, comes the additional matter to which I respectfully call the 

 careful attention of this Tribunal. A diflerence having arisen between 

 the United States and Great Britain as to the true construction of the 

 Treaty, Mr. Foster asked that some further documents should be sup- 

 plied (I am stating this of course in a very few words) and accordingly 

 it was by arrangement, which will be found in the letters of Mr. Foster 

 to Mr. Herbert, and of Lord Roseberyto Mr. Herbert, of the "2*^ Septem- 

 ber and the 1**^ October last year, arranged, in deference to the views of 

 the United States, that the report of the British Commissioners should 

 be treated as part of the Case of the Government of Her Britannic 

 Majesty. I need not now. Sir, discuss the merits of that dispute. I 

 will merely say that the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, in fur- 

 therance of the desire that this Arbitration should be conducted with 

 the fullest information on both sides, accepted the view put forward by 

 Mr. Foster on behalf of the Government of the United States that the 

 Report of the British Commissioners should be furnished, and should 

 be treated as part of the Case of the Government of Her Britannic 

 Majesty. In that Report, with which I know the Tribunal are familiar, 

 in sections 433 and 832, the Report of Mr. Elliott is referred to in sup- 

 porting certain statements of fact upon which the British Commissioners 

 relied. We had at that time therefore before us, Sir, what I may call 

 three separate allegations of fact all based upon that, which we had 

 reason to believe was an authentic extract- from Mr. Elliott's Report, 

 it having been signed by himself and being sufficient for our purpose. 



