ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 47 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Does any body add anything? 



Mr. Carter. — I designed to close the discussion, but 1 desire brevity 

 and 1 sliall not offer anything- further at this point. 



The President. — I call your attention to the fact that we have only 

 half an hour before the interruption of our meeting. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I cannot conclude in that time. 



The President. — I dare say not. I mention the fact beforehand in 

 order that you may dispose your argument in consequence. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — If you please, Sir. 



When, Sir, we received the Notice of motion which the representa- 

 tives of the United States thought i)roi)er to send intimating their 

 intention to make the application which has been put forward by my 

 learned friend we anticipated a discussion which would have been of 

 a legal character. In other words, we anticipated a discussion upon 

 what was the true interpretation of the Treaty under which and under 

 which alone this Tribunal derives its authority, and we certainly did 

 not anticipate that this would have been made the occasion of import- 

 ing into the discussion the heat, the extraordinary heat, that my learned 

 friend has manifested, and still less did we anticipate that it would 

 have been made the occasion for flinging very broad, very wild, and, 

 as I shall hoi)e to demonstrate, utterly unfounded suggestions of 

 attempted injustice on the part of Her Majesty's Government. 



Mr. Phelps. — I did not mean to say that, Sir Charles. I meant to 

 say that the result was injustice. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Well I am glad to have given the opi)or- 

 tuuity, at all events, for a disclaimer of something which certainly was 

 conveyed, in our apprehension, by some things that my learned friend 

 has said. My learned friend has made these high sounding appeals to 

 justice and has told us that there can be no justice of judgment unless 

 there is justice of procedure, what is that — (my learned friend will not 

 suppose I mean to be offensive in saying it) — but a neatly dressed plati- 

 tude? This Tribunal is, I admit, — nay, it is part of our Case, — gov- 

 erned — governed absolutely — by this Treaty, I begin by making the 

 admission, that if, according to the true construction of that Treaty, 

 we are not entitled to use and to refer to what has been called the Sup- 

 plementary Eeport, we will bow to the judgment of this Tribunal as a 

 matter of course. But I hope to make it apparent, not I will say to a 

 majority only of this Tribunal, but I hope to make it ;ipparent to each 

 individual member of this Tribunal that we are perfectly within our 

 rights according to this Treaty in the course that we have pursued and 

 in claiming admissibility for the document in question. Now I shall 

 best express the condensed sense of the argument which I have to 

 address to you by reading, as T know it is the desire of the Tribunal 

 that I should read, our short answer to the contention on the other 

 side, which has been reduced into writing, and which, as I think the 

 President desired in the previous Case, should be handed in to those 

 who have charge of the record of our proceedings. We submit " that 

 the supplementary report of the British Commissioners dated the 3ist 

 January 1893 presented solely with reference to the question of Eegu- 

 lations and under the i)rovisions of the Treaty of Arbitration of the 

 29th of February 1892 is properly presented to the Tribunal and should 

 be considered by them in the event of their being called upon to deter- 

 mine pursuant to Article VII what if any concurrent Eegulations are 

 necessary." Now, Sir, you will observe that puts iu the fore ground a 

 point obscured in the argument of my learned friend it puts in the fore 

 ground the fact that this Sujiplementary Eeport is not conversant with, 



