72 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



reserve also their right to adduce further evidence on this subject, 

 should the nature of the argument contained in the Counter Case on 

 behalf of the United States render such a course necessary or expedi- 

 ent." They claimed that then, and I as representing tlie Government 

 now claim it as within the right provided for by the xlrticle VII to aid 

 the Tribunal, together with the Keport of the Commission — to aid them 

 with such other evidence as either Government" may upon the question 

 of the Kegulations "submit". 



Again at page 166 D of the British Counter Case the question is 

 referred to and I think that that answers the question addressed to 

 us by one of your body as to when this position was taken up. I have 

 shown the position under the Original Case. I have shown the position 

 in the correspondence with Mr. Foster, and now the position in tlie 

 Counter Case: "Upon any discussion before the Tribunal upon the 

 subject of Kegulations, Her Majesty's Government will refer if neces 

 sary to the supplementary Report of the British Commissioners which 

 is now in course of preparation and will it is believed be presented to 

 Her Majesty's Government by the 31st of January 1893 " aud it was so 

 presented and bears that date. The succeeding Chapters have been 

 prepared in order that the Arbitrators may be put in possession of the 

 consideration of the other facts material to the consideration of the 

 question of Eegulations and of the reply on behalf of Her Majesty's 

 Government to the argument and allegations of fact contained in the 

 case of the United States with reference to pelagic sealing and the 

 management of the Islands in the jiast. 



Now there is but one further stage of this controversy or discussion 

 and it is the correspondence which my learned friend in solemn tones 

 referred to this morning. That is the note addressed by the late Mr. 

 Blaine when he had ceased to be Secretary of State and when Mr. 

 Foster had succeeded to that position. 



I refer with some reluctance to these questions of dispute between 

 two ministers, to each of whom I desire to attribute equally good faith. 

 I think it is unfortunate that these discussions should arise. I think, 

 moreover, that it is unnecessary that they should arise. As I have 

 said before, if you have ambiguity in a Treaty or any other document 

 you may even refer to extrinsic facts, or you may even refer to docu- 

 ments which led up to that Treaty or agreement, in order to clear up 

 the common ambiguity relating to subject matter and so forth, but in 

 this case the parties have definitely, in English which is clear and 

 intelligible to those used to construe English, exjiressed the purposes to 

 which both Governments are committed ; and 1 have therefore dealt, 

 as the main point and purpose of my argument, with the construction 

 of the Treaty itself as that which ought to guide the Tribunal. But 

 as my learned friend has felt himself justified in referring to this I am 

 bound to refer to the answer which was made by Sir Julian Paunce- 

 fote; I believe Mr. Blaine was very ill at this time. I think I am right 

 in saying that. It is addressed to Mr. Foster, and dated September 

 9th, 1892, and is at page 8 of the appendix to the British Counter Case. 

 I do not think it appears in the United States Case at all. 



Mr. Phelps. — Mr. Blaine's does. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Yes, but not the correspondence as a whole. 

 Mr. Blaine writes "After an arbitration had been resolved upon between 

 the United States and British Governments, a special correspondence 

 between the Department of State and Lord Salisbury ensued, extend- 

 ing from early in July to the middle of November, 1891. The various 

 subjects which were to be discussed, and the i^oiuts which were to be 



