22 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



the autlieutic document, whicli is already in evidence in the way that I 

 have pointed out, and when the counsel representing^- the Government 

 of the Queen join in the request for its iiroduction, there can enter into 

 the mind of any member of this Tribunal the least doubt as to the per- 

 fect authority of this Tribunal to take that document, to consider it, 

 and to attribute to it such weight as the document itself may properly 

 have attributed to it. 



My learned friend, Mr. Carter, made some reference to that report, 

 which I would respectfully suggest to this Tribunal was a reference he 

 was hardly entitled to make. He says that 1 relied upon the value of 

 the document. I did to this extent — to this extent only. I do not know 

 what is in the document, but I did say that from whatever point of view 

 it was to be looked at, it was impossible not to attribute importance to 

 a document which was made by a Commissioner specially authorized by 

 an Act of Conoress to make the report in question upon the very subject 

 of seal life which enters so largely into the present controversy; and 

 when my learned friend, Mr. Carter, suggests hypothetical reasons why 

 that report has not been published, when he suggests that it may not 

 have been published because it may have been considered unworthy of 

 credit, that it may not have been published because it may not have been 

 thought worth publishing — if my learned friend may suggest hypotheses 

 of that kind, I suppose I may equally suggest a perhaps more natural 

 reason — that it was not published because it was not considered favor- 

 able to the view for which it was originally designed. But whether that 

 view, or my learned friends' hypotheses be the correct one is not the 

 point we are now considering. 



Senator Morgan. — I understand that report was made sometime 

 before any negotiations — at least before the negotiations had taken 

 shape for the Treaty. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I am sorry to say. Sir, that again that is an 

 inaccuracy in fact. I want to explain, and it is the last matter that I 

 desire to explain, what the exact position of events, in the order of time, 

 was. The controversy which has resulted in the establishment of this 

 Tribunal began as early as 1886-1887; was going on through 1888, 1889, 

 1890; and it was not until the 5th April, 1890, that Congress passed an 

 Act under which Mr. Commissioner Elliott was appointed to report upon 

 this very subject matter of seal life. 



Senator Morgan. — I should like to enquire what is the date of Mr. 

 Elliott's report. 



Sir Charles Russell. — It is somewhere between April of 1890, and 

 December of 1890 — between those dates. 



Senator Morgan. — October, 1890. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I believe the 17*'' of November, 1890, and, 

 therefore, I think we may well be excused for urging the desirability of 

 this report being forthcoming, when it was a report directed to the sub- 

 ject matter of this controversy; and when the enquiry preparatory to 

 that report was entrusted to a person as to whom the highest character 

 was given by those charged with most responsible positions as repre- 

 senting the executive government of the United States. 



I do not think Sir, tliat there is anything further that I have to trouble 

 the Tribunal with. I have already, in my original statement, put before 

 the Tribunal my construction of the two clauses of Article IV, which are 

 in question; and I do not desire to repeat myself. As I have said, I 

 should not have been led into these colhiteral observations had it not 

 been that I have been tempted, I am afraid, to do so, by the observations 

 which have been made by my learned Hieuds. I am content to rest the 



