ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 89 



beg'aii, however wide the range of discussion may be. We can go back 

 and see wliat that point was, and what the Tribunal is moved to do. 



The (juestiou arose in this way: We came here on the 23rd of March. 

 The Tribunal assembled. The case, so far as the allegations and evi- 

 dences of the parties were concerned, had been terminated long prior 

 to that time. The Cases had been submitted many months before. 

 The Counter Cases had been submitted a long time before. Those two 

 methods were the only ones, as we supposed, provided by the Treaty 

 by which anything in the nature of evidence, or any thing in the nature 

 of information, if you i)lease, aside from evidence, or of a lower grade 

 than evidence, could be laid before this Tribunal. We never imagined 

 that there was to be any further opportunity for the submission of 

 evidence on the part of Her Majesiy's Government. We thouglit, 

 indeed, that we had much reason to complain in relation to the privi- 

 leges which had already been assumed by Her Majesty's Government 

 in the matter of the introduction of evidence. We thought we had 

 nnich reason to c()mi)lain ; but in a certain sense that had passed. We 

 did not suppose there would be any further occasion for renewing our 

 complaints, or feeling that we were subjected to any disadvantage. 



On the 23rd of March we took another step. We began the argument 

 of the questions which are submitted to this Tribunal, and the argu- 

 ment of all of them — the question of jurisdiction in Behrlng sea, the 

 question of the property interest of the United States in the seals and 

 in the industry established upon the Pribilof Islands, the question of 

 concurrent regulations — all the questions required by the Treaty to be 

 submitted to the Tribunal, and as to which evidence had been taken. 

 We began the argument in reference to them, by submitting our i)rinted 

 arguments in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty. We sup- 

 posed, indeed, or should have supposed, if we had any occasion to 

 consider it, that certainly, after a cause was ripe for argument, and 

 after argument had m point of fact been submitted, there would be no 

 attempt to introduce aiiy further evidence, or anything in the nature of 

 it. Such a thing never entered our minds; because, as we view it, 

 such a tiling is scarcely conceivable. We had made our argument, our 

 principal argument. The Treaty indeed provided that if the Tribunal 

 desired, or if the parties desired, further oral argument might be had 

 in support of the written argument. That was a provision of the 

 Treaty. 



The President. — There is more than that in the provision. If you 

 will read Article V, you will see that if the Arbitrators desire further 

 elucidation with regard to any point, they may require a written or 

 printed statement of argument. 



Mr. Carter, — That indeed, is true. 



The President. — Or oral argument. There is a difference between 

 the ])rinted statement or argument and the mere oral argument. 



Mr. Carter. — Yes sir; there w^as indeed a provision, limited to action 

 on the part of the Tribumil itself, that if it desired that some point 

 should be further elucidated, it should in some manner be done. But 

 that emergency had not as yet arisen. There had been no expression 

 of any such desire on the part of the Tribunal, no api)licati(>n for that 

 purpose to the Tribunal. Nothing of the sort took place. The cause, 

 so far as the counsel was concerned, must be regarded as a cause with 

 the proofs closed, and in a condition for argument; and not only in a 

 condition for argument, but with tlie princiiml argument having actually 

 been made. That was its condition. 



