84 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



the United States, any tiling- tliat wonld be strictly receivable in evi- 

 dence if tendered in a court of law jiresided over by a judge clothed 

 with no more than the ordinary authority of a judge of one of the High 

 courts. They are Rei)orts: the result of inquiries, in large part of cor- 

 respondence with persons who are answering certain questions upon 

 the incidents of seal life; what they think about this, and what they 

 think about that, conversations with third parties in which third par- 

 ties say what some fourth person has told them. Many comments, no 

 doubt, may be addressed to the value of portions of that evidence, but 

 you will not hear from me, Sir, you will not hear from any one on my 

 side, any objection to the reception of that. We may ask you to dis- 

 count this, or not to i)l;K*e im])licit reli;ince upon that, but we will ask 

 you to deal with it as both sides and all sides have dealt with it, as being" 

 a matter not bound to be brought w ithin the technical rules of evidence 

 as considered in ordinary judicial proceedings and established courts 

 of judicature, but as meiiniiig something much wider and something 

 much broader. Indeed, I might point out this as an illustration of what 

 I have said — the last illustration which I shall make, A number ot 

 so-called depositions, some of them taken in Canada, and some of them 

 taken elsewhere, are included in the Case, and Counter Case or the 

 Api)endices to the Case and ('ounter Case of the United States. Now 

 I need not say that even if the deposition, or oath which is involved in 

 the notion of a deixisition, were even legally taken, that would not 

 make it evidence at all. It is a i)rimary condition for the admission of 

 evidence in an ordinary court that a witness who deposes shall be sub- 

 mitted to cross-examination. That is necessarily involved in it. But 

 more than that. There is in Canada, as there is in England, — and, I do 

 not affirm it to be so, but I think, as there is also in the United States 

 of America — a statute directed against what is suyiposed to be the pro- 

 fanity involved in taking what are called extra-judicial oaths — in other 

 words, a statute which renders it improper and which forbids the tak- 

 ing of oaths excei^t in judicial proceedings and within certain accepted 

 limitations; in the case of the United States depositions taken in Can- 

 ada we find them taken and sworn to, absolutely against the law of that 

 country. 



Well now, Sir, I really have said I think enough to show you that the 

 word "evidence" in this connection means not technical evidence 

 according to the rules of courts of judicature, bnt that this Tribunal 

 will look to all the information that is ])ut before them even if it is only 

 second, or third, hand, — using their own judgment, weighing the evi- 

 dence, discounting ic if need be, and giving it only the proper weight 

 which they think it really deserves. 



And now. Sir, I think I have only one other matter to refer you to, 

 and that is the letter of Mr. Tapper in answer to the communication from 

 Mr. Foster, the United States Agent, returning the Sui)plementary 

 Eeport. You will recollect. Sir, that when the Supplementary Report 

 was furnished to the United States Agent, it was also intimated to him 

 that it was intended to forward it to the Tribunal. Mr. Foster then 

 wrote, — I am not making any complaint, — his letter of the 27th of 

 March, objecting to that being done ; and Mr. Tupper, the Agent for Her 

 Majesty, replied upon the 27th March, and I want to read to you that 

 reply. — "The undersigned Agent of Her Britannic Majesty appointed 

 to attend the Tribunal of Arbitration convened under the provisions of 

 the Treaty concluded at Washington February 29th, 1892, has the 

 honour to ackowledge the receipt," — and so on; 1 do not think I need 

 read the formal part, — " and in reply thereto desires to state that it is 



