ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 27 



event, one of the questions to be submitted to the Tribunal, in the con- 

 tingency that certain questions, certain claims of right on the part of 

 the United States Government should not be supported, was what 

 Eegulations should be prescribed by this Tribunal for the concurrence 

 of the two Governments, for the object which both had in view in all 

 these negotiations, in all these proceedings, from beginning to end — 

 the protection and preservation of the seal race in the Behring Sea 

 and the North Pacific. 



Now, tlie reports tlius provided to be laid before the Tribunal if that 

 question should engage their attention, are made evidence. They are 

 made evidence irrespective of the character of their contents. It ie 

 beyond question that whatever these Commissioners chose to embody 

 in the report, their opinions, their information, their conjectures — all 

 become evidence for what they may be thought to be worth in the 

 estimation of the Tribunal, but not to be rejected. It is not open to 

 either party to say in respect to the contents of these reports, " This 

 passage is hearsay; that is conjecture; the third is opinion; the fourth 

 is vague and general information, and therefore it does not constitute 

 legal evidence, and must be discarded in the consideration of the case ". 

 We cannot say that, because the Treaty which provides for the appoint- 

 ment of these Commissioners, which provides to them certain oppor- 

 tunities for informing themselves makes their report evidence; not 

 conclusive evidence, not in all parts of it equally forcible evidence, but 

 evidence that is to be admitted. 



It will be perceived, therefore, that the evidence afforded by the 

 reports of these Commissioners on both sides — and these observations 

 apply equally to both sides — have an unusual character; that is to say, 

 much of their contents, which if it were undertaken to be put into the 

 Case through the mouth of any other witness might be properly objected 

 to as not evidence, is made evidence here. And it will be seen, further- 

 more, that unquestionably it was the expectation of the Treaty that 

 the reports of the Commissioners on both sides would engage the 

 serious consideration of the Tribunal. It is made not only evidence to 

 a larger extent than other evidence could be; it is placed upon some- 

 what a higher plane than any other evidence would be, so far as the 

 authors of it are concerned. 



Now these Commissioners failed to agree, except to a limited extent, 

 there was a Joint Report to a small, but in our judgnieut, to a very 

 important, extent, which was laid before the Governments, and has 

 already undoubtedly attracted the attention of the members of the 

 Tribunal. But on many points of great importance they failed to 

 agree; and the consequence was that under the provision of the 

 Treaty, separate reports were made by the British Commissioners to 

 their Government, and by the American Commissioners to theirs; and 

 those reports have found their way, properly enough, into the Case, and 

 they are already before the Tribunal for such consideration as they may 

 be thought to be entitled to. 



After this Case is closed, after all the successive steps which the 

 Treaty provided for have been taken, after the Case and the Counter 

 Case and the written argument have all been submitted; after the 

 Case has come to an end, except so far as the decision and award of 

 the Tribunal is concerned, unless one or more of the parties, or the 

 Tribunal itself should avail of the right under the Treaty to have an 

 oral argument, we are presented with a printed volume, purporting to 

 be, as of course it is, a supplemental report of the British Comtnis- 

 sioners. Now, what is that? As I have said, we have declined to 



