ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 77 



with tlie second of those documents, but it furnishes the substance, 

 although the hmguage is somewhat different, but not in any sense 

 which affects the point which I am submitting. Tlierefoie if I were to 

 stop here, and not refer to the answer wliich Sir Julian Pauncefote 

 makes, I have made good, I submit, my point, tliat so far from this 

 letter of Mr. Blaine, with enclosures accompanying it, serving my 

 learned friend's point, it is an aid to the argument which 1 am present- 

 ing. But what is Sir Julian Pauncefote's answer; and here I have to 

 make one observation. The Agent of the United States has thought 

 tit to print the letter of Mr Blaine, but has not thought tit to print — I 

 am very reluctant to make matters of complaint, and I do not do more 

 than observe in passing that he has not thought proper to print — what 

 I think ought to have been jDrinted, namely Sir Julian Pauncefote's 

 answer. 



Mr. Foster. — May I say it would have been printed if it had been 

 written and received in time to be printed. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I am very glad to have that explanation. 



Mr. Foster. — It bears date two months after the letter to which it 

 replies. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — That is not quite the matter in point, but 

 I am very glad to have that explanation, I understand the Agent to 

 say it was not received in time to admit of its being printed. That is 

 an ample explanation, and as obviously Mr. Blaine appeals to Sir Julian 

 Pauncefote, it would have been, of course, a matter of propriety that 

 the answer to that appeal should appear. However, the answer that 

 the Agent gives is entirely satisfactory. 



Now what does Sir Julian Pauncefote say? To begin with, he begins 

 by showing why there was not an earlier answer for the reason that he 

 appears to have been absent from Washington, and his statement sliows 

 that, because he says "Since my return to Washington I have had an 

 opportunity of examining the official correspondence which has taken 

 place". Then "1 find", he says in the 2nd paragraph, "that in a note 

 from Mr. Foster to Mr. Herbert of the 9th of November last 1 am infer- 

 entially appealed to by Mr. Foster and also by Mr. Blaine in support ot 

 the contention of the United States Government that the contingency 

 mentioned in Article VII" — that ought to be Article IX by the way — 

 "does not refer to the decision of the Arbitrators on the five special 

 questions submitted to them, but to the inability of the Joint Commission 

 to come to an agreement as to the Seal Regulations. 



"I am at a loss to understand this reference to me, as throughout the 

 whole of my negotiations with Mr. Blaine, and (during his prolonged 

 illness) with the Assistant Secretaries of State (Messrs. Wharton, Adee 

 and Moore) not one word was ever spoken or written which could even 

 suggest the belief that I ever held any view as to the intention of tiie 

 two Governments on the point in question, other than that which is 

 plainly expressed in Articles VII and IX of the Treaty". With respect 

 to those articles Mr. Foster states that the contingency referred to was 

 that of an inability of the members of the Joint Commission to come to 

 an agreement satisfa(;tory to their Governments, and not as Lord Rose- 

 bery supposes that of a determination upon the five s[)ecial questions 

 adverse to the contention of the United States. Mr. Foster adds. "It 

 is believed that Sir Julian Pauncefote, the negotiator on the ])art of Her 

 Majesty's Government, will nut dissent from this statement." Here is 

 the answer. Sir Julian Pauncefote says : — "I desire to vecord my entire 

 dissent from that view". 



