20 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Have you got the page of the case of the 

 British Government which refers to that Appendix? 



Sir Charles Russell. — I do not know that there is a reference in 

 the case to the particular page. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — I suppose it comes in under the general evi- 

 dence filed with the case. 



Sir Charles Russell. — In the Appendix, yes. That is the way, 

 Sir, in which it comes in, and on that page there is given, first of all, 

 what puri)orts to be a portion of a leader, a newspaper article, copied 

 from the journal to which 1 have referred, the Cleveland Journal; and 

 then follows what purports to be a part of Mr. Elliott's Report. 



Mr. Carter. — Mr. Attorney, will you give me the place where, as you 

 say, the Report is itself put in evidence — adduced in evidence? 



Sir Charles Russell. — My learned friend did not hear my answer 

 correctly. 



Mr. Carter. — I am afraid not. 



Sir Charles Russell. — There is no special reference in the case to 

 this any more than there is a special reference to the hundred and one 

 documents which are referred to here, but all of the documents in the 

 Appendix are put forward as proof in support of the case on behalf of 

 •the Queen. Now, that being so, we have a further step to shew, that 

 it is adduced in evidence, — imperfectly adduced because we have not 

 the original document, — in part produced because we have not the whole 

 document. It is further referred to in the British Commissioners' Report 

 at page 77. 



Senator Morgan. — The original Report or the supplemental Report? 



Sir Charles Russell. — The original Report. We have not yet got, 

 Sir, to the question of the supplemental Report of the British Commis- 

 sioners, which is a distinct subject which my learned friends on the 

 other side have given us notice they intend to bring before this Tribu- 

 nal and seek to exclude. 



Senator Morgan. — I have not read that paper, and therefore I made 

 the enquiry. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I am speaking. Sir, of the original report, 

 and I wish to remind the Arbitrators how this matter stood. I do not 

 want to antici])ate the subject of a later motion at all — that would be 

 irregular, but it was the view Her Majesty's Government took rightly 

 or wrongly ^that we shall consider hereafter) that anything which bore 

 upon the question of regulations ought not to form part of the original 

 Case on behalf of Her Majesty at all. It is enough to say that the advis- 

 ers of the United States "took a different view, and in obedience and in 

 deference to their view and expressed desire we furnished them with, as 

 part of our original Case, that report of the British Commissioners, and 

 as the Agent of the United States and as my learned friends will recol- 

 lect that was the subject matter of diplomatic correspondence which is 

 set out in the documents, the result of which, shortly, was that the 

 Government of the Queen standing by the view which they took of what 

 the Treaty contemplated, said they did not regard the Commissioners' 

 report as properly part of the original Case at all. The United States 

 insisted upon the opposite view, and in order to remove what was a 

 cause of friction in the preparation for coming before this Tribunal, the 

 Government of the Queen agreed to furnish then and there a copy of 

 the British Commissioners' report, which had been prepared long before; 

 and that was accepted by the Agent of the United States and agreed 

 by the Agent of the United States to be considered as part of the 

 original Case. We have, therefore, in that Commissioners' report, 



