AEGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MaTJONS. 59 



Let me illnstrate it. Yon have seen in the appendix to the Case a 

 nninber of depositions of native Indians and other ])ersons who piofess 

 to be more or less experts npon the question of the i)ursuit of seals. 

 We have not had the o[)portnnity of testing by the ready test of Cross- 

 Examination one sinoie one of those witnesses. We have not had the 

 opportunity of inquiring- into the character, the antecedents, the "trust- 

 wortliiness" — to nse my learned friend's expression — of any one of them: 

 and yet we are — because the exi,<>eucies of the case require that we 

 sliouid, and because the constitution of this Tribunal coutemplates 

 tliat we should — willing that all that, quantum valeaf, shall be regarded 

 and taken into consideration by this Tribunal, this Tribunal Aveighing 

 the evidence by such means as are available to them, discounting it 

 where they have reason to suspect motive, or where they see intrinsic 

 irai)robability: contrasting it with the evidence upon the other side, 

 and by this means, (altltough not strictly legal evidence), arriving at 

 what they will, in the result, regard as reliable and solid information 

 npon which their judgment may be rested. I turn to the Counter Case, 

 and really in view of what I must be permitted to call the extravagant 

 expressions of my learned friend Mr Phelps as to the iniquity of our 

 putting something forward which they have had no opportunity of 

 answering, I do not understand how my learned friend can reconcile it 

 to his moral sense to put betbre this arbitration the mass of matter 

 which is to be found in the Counter Case, and which we have had no 

 opportujiity of answering. 



Xow let me make clear to the Arbitrators what I mean by this, I 

 ought, to tell you how it is said this is justitied. It is said that this is 

 by way of answer to the Case of Great Britain. Well of course that 

 is a mere fagon de purler. None of it purports to be in answer to 

 specific allegations in the British Case, and it only needs reference to 

 any part of this book to see that if there be injustice of the kind which 

 my learned friend insisted npon, it relates to all that i)ortion of the 

 United States Counter Case which I have separated from the rest and 

 which runs with the exception of a few pages from page 135 to the end 

 of the volume, what do I find there. I find there reports, amongst 

 others — I am merely taking these as illustrations — of a Captain Hooper 

 made in August of 1892, September of 1892, one of a Captain Coulson 

 of the Cth September 1892, one of a Mr. Evermann of the 28th Septem- 

 ber 1892, one of Mr. Stanley-Brown of the IGth December 1892, and I 

 find depositions of a nnmbcr of witnesses whom we never heard, whom 

 we have had no opportunity, I need not say of cross-examining or of 

 inquiring into, extending from i^age 300 odd on to I think page 400. 

 Therefore really this ciy of injustice is as I conceive not in fact well 

 founded. But I want to go a little further. It is said by my friend, 

 not only is this Supplementary Report ottered in evidence, but it is 

 offered in evidence under circumstances in which it is sought as a sup- 

 plementary Commissioners Report, to give it a special sanctity or 

 character. I think the expression my friend used was " to put it on a 

 higher plane". Let me absolutely and at once disclaim any such sug- 

 gestion. I claim no special value by the reason of the fact that these 

 were Commissioners appointed by Great Britain, beyond intrinsic 

 value, after weighing their statements, contrasting statements on the 

 same subject by witnesses on the part of the United States and judging 

 of the inherent weight and probability and prower of self-recommen- 

 dation which staten)ents themselves contain — I claim in a word no 

 other weight than the intrinsic merit of the thing itself demands. 

 Thus I come back to my idea of a few moments ago, that we seek to 



