ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 23 



matter where my friend Mr. Plielps left it very early in tlie course of his 

 argument, namely, that the document shall be forthcoming-, that the 

 Tribunal shall for itself judge of its character; but I wish again emphat- 

 ically to say that this is not an attempt to introduce evidence not already 

 in the Case. The rejiort is in evidence : imperfectly referred to, I admit, 

 because we had not the original document; and this application, to put 

 it plainly and shortl}' , is simply that there shall be in its best and most 

 authentic form before this Tribunal that report which is already, but, I 

 admit, imperfectly, adduced as evidence in the case. 



Mr. Phelps. — In compliance with the request of the President, I have 

 reduced into writing the reply of the United States to this Motion, a 

 copy of which will be furnished to the Secretary before the adjournment 

 of the Court. With the permission of the Tribunal, I will read it. — 

 " The United States Government denies that Her Majesty's Government 

 is entitled, under the provisions of the Treaty, to any order by the Tri- 

 bunal for the production of the document specified in the motion, as a 

 matter of right. The United States Government, however, is willing 

 to waive (so far as it is concerned) its right of objection, and to furnish 

 to the Agent of Her Majesty's Government a copy of the document 

 referred to, for such use as evidence as the Tribunal may deem proper 

 to allow. Not conceding, however, in so doing, that either party at this 

 or any subsequent stage of the proceedings has a right to introduce any 

 further evidence whatever, upon any subject whatever, connected with 

 the controversy. And further stipulating that if the document referred 

 to in this motion shall be used in evidence at all, it shall be open to the 

 use of both parties equally in all its points." 



Sir Charles Russell. — Oh ! clearly, that follows. 



The Tribunal then adjourned for a short time. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Perhaps, as the Counsel for the United 

 States have read their answer to the motion, I ought to read to the 

 Tribunal the form of the order which I propose the Tribunal shall make. 



The President. — Will you be kind enough to read it? 



Sir Charles Russell.— Yes, Sir. "That the Agent of the United 

 States be called upon by the Tribunal to produce the original, or a cer- 

 tified copy, of the Report made by Henry W. Elliott on the subject of 

 fur-seals, X)ursuant to Act of Congress 1890". 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — You had better give the date of the report, if 

 you can, in that motion. 



Sir Richard Webster.— The 17th of November 1890. 



Sir Charles Russell. — We are not sure that is the date, however. 



Lord Hannen. — Sir Charles, is that the form of the order which you 

 asked for? 



Sir Charles Russell. — That is the form of order which I at present 

 ask for. 



Lord Hannen. — Precisely; I thought so. 



Mr. Phelps. — We did not understand, Mr. President, that this 

 motion would be the subject of any order by the Tribunal upon the 

 party to produce this document. We understood that we produced it 

 by consent and furnished it to the Agent of Her Britannic Majesty's 

 Government, and that the Tribunal would make such order in respect 

 to its reception as it might deem proper. To produce this under an 

 order of the Tribunal would carry the idea that they were entitled to 

 an order for the i)roduction of the document, which we do not concede, 

 by any means. 



Sir Charles Russell.— The matter stands in this way, if I may say 

 so ; We respectfully call for the order. My learned friend answers that 



