ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 87 



of wLidi is dated the 17th of August 1892, at page 208 and extending 

 fiom page 208 to page 213, containing a number of statements of more 

 or less relevance, of more or less importance — statements of fact as to 

 which we have not the slightest opi)ortunity of cross-examining Oapt. 

 Hooper, or meeting the facts that he alleges. 



Throughout the whole of this Counter Case, on almost every page 

 of it, the illustrations that I have given will lit in with the rest — new 

 matter as to which we have had no opportunity of inquiry and no oppor- 

 tunity of examination. 



I am not making this as a complaint. I am meeting the comi)]aint, 

 I am pointing out that in an arbitration, conducted as this is, whei'e 

 evidence is admittedly ])ut in as to which there can be no cross-exami- 

 nation, that there must be a certain proportion of that evidence as to 

 which the other side can have no opportunity of meeting in anyway. It 

 is so with their Counter Case. It is so as regards the Supplementary 

 Eei)ort, with this important difference — that the Supplementary Eeport, 

 if 1 am permit! ed to say so much in description of it (I do not know 

 whether I am) is a sui)plementarv report, not putting forward new 

 facts, but expressing on further information and further consideration, 

 the views of men who have had special opportunities of observing this 

 question of seal life, so far as it bears upon Regulations. That is the 

 character and purport of the Supplementary Report. It is not a new 

 report like Capt. Hooper's, of new facts. It is comment, argument in 

 the light of further inquiry and further investigation. 



Now, Sir, I sit down, gratefully recognizing the patience with wliich 

 this Tribunal has heard me. And before I sit down I wish to empha- 

 size the point which alone gives grave importance to this question — 

 that we claim from this Tribunal a decision as to which there shall be 

 no doubt or hesitation; that the questions of right shall be determined 

 before the question of Regulations is approached; and we shall use 

 every effort which it is in our power legitimately to use to insure that 

 result. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I cannot add anything to Sir Charles' 

 argument. 



The President. — We thank you for the perfect lucidity with which 

 you have argued your point. 



I would ask Mr. Phelps and Mr. Carter whether they have anything 

 to add in point of observation to the foregoing argument. 



Mr. Carter. — Mr. President, before I begin what I have to say in 

 reply to the argument which has been addressed to you upon the other 

 side, there is perhaps one point upon which I ought to make an obser- 

 vation in order that my argument may be better understood and not 

 misapprehended. 



The learned counsel when taking his seat in the course of his argu- 

 ment yesterday, made an observation pertaining to what I may perhaps 

 call the proprieties of forensic controversy in something like these 

 words : 



I tliinlf , therefore, that I have so far made good my position. I ought not to say 

 that I think so, as it is not the habit of counsel, with us at least, to expi-ess personal 

 opinions; and I wish to guard myself, and desire to follow the course which is con- 

 sidered the proper course in these matters — to submit these matters, and let them be 

 tested by the strength of the arguments advanced in support of them without bring- 

 ing in — and 1 hope my learned friends will agree with me — personality of counsel 

 for or against. 



