14 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



Mr. Phelps. — That is a question which will come iip later. 



Senator Morgan. — That was referred to and as a case analogous to 

 this, and an authority on this question. 



Mr. Phelps. — That will come up later, under other motions, for dis- 

 cussion, but as the question has been put by the learned Arbitrator, I 

 may say that in our judgment no such evidence can be j^roperly consid- 

 ered. That will be our position when we reach that question. All I 

 desire to say now is that, without conceding, and emphatically denying 

 that the terms of this Treaty entitle Her Majesty's Government to call 

 for this document, we prefer to consent to put it in evidence, with the 

 understanding that, if used at all it is open to both sides, leaving it to 

 the Tribunal to attach such value to it, and to make such use of it as 

 they may deem proper. The whole subject, let me say in conclusion, of 

 the time and manner in which evidence not in reply can be brought 

 before the Tribunal, will come up later and will come up all the way 

 through the discussion of this case. 



Mr. Carter. — Mr. President and gentlemen, in respect to this par- 

 ticular paper there is not, it seems to me, very much importance in this 

 discussion, and I quite concur with my learned associate in his manner 

 of dealing with itf but in respect to our views as to the powers of this 

 Tribunal there is a great deal of importance, and it seems to me that 

 any discussion concerning them, whenever it is brought forward, should 

 be conducted with deliberation, and nothing should be taken for granted. 



I am moved to add one or two observations here, solely in conse- 

 quence of some remarks which were made by our learned friends upon 

 the other side. The first of them which attracted my attention was 

 that the refusal by the agent of the United States to furnish the docu- 

 ment in question, when the demand was made for it in February last, 

 and the grounds upon which that refusal was placed, seemed to exhibit 

 a very narrow interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty, and of the 

 necessities of the controversy, and also exhibited a disposition to rely 

 upon technical considerations. 



If the object was to indicate that the United States, in their dealing 

 with this controversy generally had been at all disposed to withdraw 

 from the attention of the Tribunal which was to dispose of it any evi- 

 dence which was pertinent to the merits of it I am very sure that such 

 an imjiutation would be wholly erroneous. It is our belief that the 

 Government of the United States, at every step during the pendency of 

 this controversy, has exhibited the largest and most liberal spirit in 

 reference to the production of evidence which would be pertinent to the 

 merits. If there was any facility which it peculiarly enjoyed for the 

 ascertainment of truth, it has been ready, I think, from the start to 

 furnish it to the Government of Great Britain. My learned friends 

 upon the other side will remember, and the Tribunal must be aware 

 from the case which has been laid before it, and the papers contained 

 in it, that at the very outset the Pribiloff Islands, which are the arena 

 out of which the controversy arose, were freely thrown open to the 

 inspection of Her Majesty's agents. A special agent was allowed to go 

 out there for the purpose of making enquiries, and for the purpose of 

 gathering evidence which it might be useful for Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment to incorporate into the Case which was to be submitted to the 

 Tribunal. If there was any knowledge in reference to the habits of the 

 seal to be gathered from that Island, if there was any information in 

 reference to the industry carried on upon that Island which might be of 

 any sort of use to Her Majesty's Government, it was freely thrown open. 

 I think the same coui-se has been pursued in reference to documentary 



