ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 29 



each of the Arbitrators and to the Agent of the other party as soon as 

 may be after the appointment of the members of the Tribunal, but within 

 a period not exceeding four months from the date of the exchange of the 

 ratifications of this Treaty ". That is the first step, that as soon as pos- 

 sible, and not later than four months from the ratification of the Treaty, 

 the Case, the documents, the allegations, the proofs which each party 

 relies upon shall be not merely laid before the Arbitrators but shall be 

 furnished to the other party. 



Senator Morgan. — " Printed". 



Mr. Phelps. — Printed, and laid before the other party. For what 

 purpose? To give the other party that opi)ortunity of reply without 

 which no administration of justice can take place, or ever undertook to 

 take place. That is what it is for. The next. Article 4, i^rovides that 

 " Within three months after the delivery on both sides of the printed 

 Case, either party may, in like manner, deliver in duplicate to each of 

 the said Arbitrators, and to the Agent of the other party, a Counter 

 Case, and additional documents^ correspondence, and evidence, in reply 

 to the Case, documents, correspondence, and evidence so presented by 

 the other party ". There is the opportunity on each side for a complete 

 reply to the evidence contained in the printed Case i)reviously delivered. 

 Then it is provided in the next clause, — I need not read it in extenso — 

 that if either party finds that time too short to complete his reply, he 

 may give notice within a certain time, and an additional period of sixty 

 days beyond the three mouths is allowed him. So sedulous is the 

 Treaty in respect to giving this complete opportunity of reply, that, in 

 addition to the three months allowed primarily, it is at the option of 

 either party to require two months longer. 



Then follows the provision that was under discussion this morning, 

 by which it was carefully provided that, if any documents were alluded 

 to or specified on either side in support of their case, on demand of the 

 other side they should be forthcoming, and that if any document was 

 put in evidence, the other side might demand a sight of the original or 

 a certified copy if he questioned its authenticity. And I am reminded 

 that in pursuance of this provision. Her Majesty's Government did ask 

 for the extension of sixty days for the completion of their Counter Case 

 which was, of course, accorded. It was a matter of right. Then Arti- 

 cle 5: "It shall be the duty of the Agent of each party, within one 

 month after the expiration of the time limited for delivery of the Counter 

 Case on both sides, to deliver in duplicate to each of the said Aibitra- 

 tors and to the Agent of the other party a printed argument shewing 

 the points and relerring to the evidence upon which his Government 

 relies. Either party may also support the same before the Arbitrators 

 by oral argument of Counsel ; and the Arbitrators may, if they desire 

 further elu(;idation with regard to any point, require a written or 

 printed statement or argument, or oral argument by Counsel, upon it." 

 Those are the successive steps by which the case is to be brought 

 before the Tribunal; first by the Case, second, by the Counter case or 

 reply, third, by the written argument, fourth, -if it is desired by the 

 parties or the Tribunal, by the oral argument. 



Now let me remark again, as I had occasion to remark this morning, 

 there is no line in this Treaty which professes to confer upon the Tri- 

 bunal any authority over this system of procedure except to enforce it 

 as it reads. It is not allowed to the Tribunal to say that, though the 

 Case is required to be tiled within tour months, it may be filed within 

 six. It is not allowed to the Tribunal to say that the Countei' Case, if 

 not filed within five months, may be filed in seven, or that the writteji 



