60 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



put this in evidence which under Article VII may be received by this 

 Tribunal under the title of " such other evidence as either Government 

 may submit," and let me say that I do not recede from, but stand by, 

 what 1 said, that up to the moment that you retire to consider the ques- 

 tion of Jle^ulatious, after you shall first have decided, as the Treaty 

 requires, tlie five questions of right, raised for your distinct decision, 

 it is within the competence of this Tribunal to receive any evidence 

 offered by either Grovernment which has any valuable light upon and 

 in relation to the question. 



The President. — Do you construe this as meaning legal evidence 

 or information? 



Sir Charles Russell. — Information merely. 



The President. — Not legal evidence. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Not legal evidence. 



The President. — The words are, " with such other evidence as either 

 Government may submit." You do not construe that as implying legal 

 evidence. 



Sir Charles Russell. — No, Sir. 



Lord Hannen. — None of this was legal evidence, because it would 

 not be subject to cross-examination. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Not subject to cross-examination. 



The President. — The construction goes rather far. One would like 

 to know how far it goes, and how far it does not go. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Certainly, Sir. Let me make that position 

 clear because T think it lies at the very root of this matter. If this is 

 a matter which at all weighs upon the mind of the Tribunal, or of any 

 one member of the Tribunal, I would desire to enlarge upon it, and to 

 enlarge upon it simply by saying that there is no part of the evidence 

 submitted on one side or the other which is legal evidence. The United 

 States has no legal evidence. 



Senator Moroan. — Why is it called "evidence" then? 



Sir Charles Russell. — Because it is evidence. It is called evi- 

 dence because it is evidence. 



Senator Morgan. — Without being legal. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Without being legal certainly. 



The President. — Even for the legal points. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Even for the legal points. So far as the 

 legal points are concerned our position, and I must enlarge upon that 

 presently, is clear. We say, as regards the first four questions, namely 

 those relating to what I have called the derivative title, or the title 

 founded upon estoppel, that they involve no questions of law that are 

 really likely to cause, I think, any doubt or any diiificulty, or I will ven- 

 ture to say, although I may be sanguine therein, any difference between 

 those who represent the United States, and those who represent Great 

 Britain. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — What questions are those? 



Sir Charles Russell. — The first four. They depend upon construc- 

 tion of public documents., and upon historical facts — those first four ques- 

 tions. As regards the 5th question, there I agree there is a difference. 

 We come there, undoubtedly to vexed questions, but in our submission 

 and in our judgment — and it is the position we have taken in the orig- 

 inal Case, and the position that we adhere to — so far as they depend 

 upon any facts, those facts are not in dispute, and it is upon the ques- 

 tions of law applicable to facts that are not in dispute that the decision of 

 question 5 depends. 



Senator Morgan. — Do you mean Municipal law., or International law? 



