Q6 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



I must advert, still trying to bear in mind tlie point I was npon, to 

 the suggestion of my learned friend that the Commissioners after they 

 made tiieir first Eeport were functi officio. I have told tlie Tribunal 

 why I did not think that important, because I do not ask this Tribunal 

 to attach any peculiar character or importance, or to place tliis Sup])le- 

 mental Eep<>rt npon any liigher plane, than any other evidence that 

 might be olfered to them for the question of Eegulations with which 

 alone it is conversant. 



The President. — You mean that you put the Supplementary Eeport 

 upon the same plane as the first? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Well, I myself think it is not upon any very 

 high plane and 1 will tell you why. Let me j)oiut this out. 



The President. — As to Article IX"? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Let me call your attention to this Article 

 IX : " The four Commissioners shall, so far as they may be able to agree, 

 make a joint Eeport to each of the two Governments, and they shall 

 also report either jointly or severally to each Government on any points 

 on which they may be unable to agree." Then I want to know, is a 

 peculiar sanctity or importance to be given to the Eeports in which 

 they differ, according to whether they come from the United States or 

 Great Britain? The very fact that they are, as the event has turned 

 out to be, and as one might well have supposed it would be, unable to 

 agree in the Eeport, and take different views, and report in different 

 language according to the stand point they take, — you cannot exteud 

 to two sets of discordant and disagreeing Eeports, — you cannot to each 

 extend any peculiar sanctity or place them on any peculiar plane. 



I-ach must stand on its merits, and the premises on which it is based 

 and tlie value the Tribunal tfiinks in the consideration of those Eeports 

 they respectively deserve, — no more and no less, and all this about 

 special sanctity, or peculiar character, or high plane, or low plane, may 

 be dismissed from this controversy as of no real moment whatever. 

 The Treaty is contemplating Eeports as wide asunder as the poles, and 

 yet you are supposed to impart equal sanctity, and place each on an 

 equal i)lane free from criticism. All is to go before the Arbitrators, if 

 they disagree, the Arbitrators are to say to which they give effect, and 

 how far they are to give effect. 



I still have not said what I want to say on the fimcti officio point. It 

 is this. That my learned friends did not themselves conceive that their 

 Commissioners were functi officio when they made their first Eeport, is 

 clear, because ray learned friends will find that they have under a dif- 

 ferent date included in the documents which they have put in their 

 Case, three Eeports of different dates from their Commissicmers. Very 

 well. . 



Now I pass from that which I consider a very small point. 



Mr. Phelps. — One is the joint Keport. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — No, they are separate Eeports. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — If the joint Eeport is -to be regarded there 

 are three. There is the joint Eeport which may be said to be a Ee])ort 

 in which the United States and British Commissioners agreed to differ, 

 and two separate Eeports by the United States Commissioners besides. 



Now, it remains fur me, before finally leaving this question of the 

 meaning of "other evidence" witliin Article VII to beg the considera- 

 tion of the Tribunal to these two points. I have pointed out in the C-on- 

 vention of April 18JJ2, facilities were given to the Eepresentatives of 

 Great Britain to elaborate by further eiupiiry and examination this 

 question of seal life so far as it had an inq)ortant bearing either on the 

 question of property, or upon the question of Eegulations. 



