FIFTH DAY, APRIL 6^«, 1893, 



Sir Charles Russell. — Sir, when the Tribunal adjourned yester- 

 day evening I was calling attention to the letter of Mr. Blaine of tbe 

 8th November 1892 addressed to his successor in office as Secretary of 

 State, namely, Mr. Foster; and Mr. Blaine says that not one word was 

 said or intimated respecting the questions now raised by the British Gov- 

 ernment as to a secondary submission of evidence. Tlie first question 

 that one asks one's self in relation to that statement is why anything 

 should have been said. The parties have entered into an Agreement 

 or Treaty wliich speaks for itself, which was to be judged as to its effect 

 by the language which was used in it. But it is important to observe 

 that Mr. Blaine in that letter abstains, as you would ex])ect an honour- 

 able man to abstain, from suggesting that anything had taken place to 

 in any way convey to his mind that the British Government took any 

 different view at any time of the proper construction of the Treaty 

 than that which they had consistently observed in their original Case, 

 in the diplomatic correspondence, and in the mode in which they had 

 presented their case to this Tribunal, but I feel grateful to my learned 

 friend for calling attention to this corresponderice, because unless I 

 misconceive its effect, so far from impairing, it materially strengthens 

 the i)osition that I am now taking up. Because in this letter there 

 were enclosed two documents, and I would resi)ectfully, if 1 may, ask 

 all the Members of the Tribunal to take before them the Appendix to 

 the British Counter Case, Volume I, for they will not follow, as I should 

 desire them to, the point I am now insisting upon unless they have that 

 document before them. This is not ])rinted in the United States Case. 

 I hope the Tribunal will excuse my appealing to them and making 

 some insistance upon this point, but it is really in aid of the Tribunal. 

 I refer to the Appendix to the Counter Case of Her Majesty's Govern- 

 ment, Volume I, page 9. On that page are set out the two documents 

 which are thus headed. "Memorandum of Agreement referred to in 

 Mr. Blaine's letter of November the 8th, 1892". And it will be seen 

 by the Tribunal that that consists of two separate documents, both 

 dated, though separately signed, the 18th of December, 1891. Let me 

 remind the Tribunal before I read it of the point which is the great 

 point made by my learned friend Mr. Phelps in his argument on the 

 construction of Articles Vll and IX. — That the contingency referred 

 to in Article IX is the contingency of any Arbitration taking place at 

 all. We, on the other hand, say the contingency referred to in Article 

 IX is the contingency of the questions in Article VI being decided in 

 a particular fashion; in other words, being decided so as to render 

 necessary the concurrence of Great Britain to any Kegulations. Now, 

 bearing that point in mind, the contention, on my learned friend's 

 side, — what is the contingency referred to, — I say that these documents 

 demonstrate that the contingency was the contingency of the decision 

 of those questions in a particular manner. 



75 



