ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 73 



deeided, by tbe Arbitrators iu the affair of the Behring sea were agreed 

 ui)on in tliis eorresiioiideiice. A month hiter Sir Julian Pauncefote the 

 British Minister aid myself arranged the correspondence, and reduced 

 the propositions and counter propositions to a Memorandum which was 

 signed by us on the 18th December. Subsequently, the questions which 

 had arisen between the two Governments concerning the jurisdictional 

 rights", and so on "were expressed in the form of a Treaty concluded 

 at Washington on the 29th February 1892 ; "—I do not think it is neces- 

 sary to read every word of this, because it is not material to the point; 

 but this is the important position. 



"In all these steps, including the correspondence with Lord Salisbury, 

 the Memorandum concluded between Sir Julian and myself, and the 

 Treaty that was ultimately proclaimed on the 9th May, 1892, and which 

 was negotiated by Sir Julian and myself not one word was said or inti- 

 mated respecting the question now raised by the British Government 

 as to"— I want to call your attention to this extraordinary language— 

 "as to a secondary submission of evidence after the first five points set 

 forth in Article VI had been decided by the Arbitrators. It was never 

 intimated that any other mode of proceeding should be than that which 

 is expressed in Articles III, IV— and V of the Treaty. I shall be sur- 

 prised if Sir Julian Pauncefote shall differ iu the slightest degree from 

 this recital of facts". 



I will read what. Sir Julian Pauncefote said in a moment, but there 

 lurks in this (though not so obviously) as in the argument of Mr. Phelps 

 the suggestion that we are here contending that there shall be two sepa- 

 rate awards. First two separate hearings and then two separate awards. 

 I do not say it would be outside the authority of the tribunal if they 

 thought right to deal with it in separate awards. I do not express an 

 opinion, nor is it necessary that 1 should one way or the other. But 

 what is necessary, is that there should be an expression of the deter- 

 miiuition of the five questions submitted in Article VI. The intimation, 

 it is quite enough, of the distinct decision of the Arbitrators on the 

 point before they can proceed to the next point in the question of regu- 

 lations; and as regards the question of regulations substantially on 

 both sides the matter is entirely, before the Tribunal. My learned 

 friends have said they have not read this Supplementary Keport. I 

 think they would have been wiser if they had, we begged them to read 

 it without prejudice to their objection, but they have not apparently, 

 and the result is that Mr. Phelps gives it an inaccurate description. He 

 says it embraces a number of new depositions. It does nothing of the 

 kind. It is a further argument on further consideration of the view 

 that the British Commissioners took upon the question of regulations, 

 nothing more. 



Then, Sir, I have to read this answer of Mr. Blaine on this point. 



The President. — Perhaps that would keep till to-morrow. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — If you please, I should much prefer it. 



The President. — Then, before we adjourn, I call the attention of 

 the Agents of both Governments to the unsatisfactory character, I am 

 sorry to say, of the shorthand report which has been given us. It has 

 been a source of great inconvenience. 



Sir CnARLES Kussell, — May I state what has been arranged, and 

 I think it will be found to work well. We, on the whole, thought that, 

 as the com})ositors who have set up the type for that print were not 

 accustomed to the pjuglish language, or certainly not much accustomed 

 to lead it in manuscri])t, it was a very creditable production on the part 

 of the compositors of this great capital. There are, undoubtedly, a 



