ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 93 



in that particular, if it were required tliat each party should submit 

 his Case, his proofs, aud his evidence to his adversary to the end that 

 the adversary might criticise them, deny them, contradict them, meet 

 them, modify them, or reply to them. That is an opportunity insep- 

 arable from the admiuistration of justice. No proceeding- deserves the 

 name of being a judicial one unless each of the parties has an oppor- 

 tunity to know beforehand wliat the allegations of his adversary are, 

 and what the proofs are upon which he designs to support those alle- 

 gations. That facilities should be afforded for that main aud essential 

 thing is of course absolutely necessary. That is a ])oint which no one — 

 I will not say no lawyer — but no intelligent man living under English 

 law, would think of ignoring or disregarding. 



If we turn to the Treaty we find that provisions of that sort are 

 made. Article 111 provides: 



The printed Case of each of the two parties accompanied by the documents, the 

 official correspondence and other evideuce on which each relies, shall be delivered 

 in duplicate to each of the Arbitrators, and to the Agent of the other party as soon 

 as may be after the appointment of tlie members of the Tribunal, but within a period 

 not exceeding four months from the date of the exchange of the ratihcations of the 

 Treaty. 



I suppose there is no question as to the entire lucidity of that clause. 

 It requires no interpretation. "The printed Case of each ot the ]>ar- 

 ties" was to be furnished to the other; and if we had no i)recedcnts to 

 guide us in respect to proceedings for international arbitration, law- 

 yers — anybody — would easily understand what "printed Case" meant. 

 It would be the case upon which you rested your contention; your 

 allegations of fact; the evidences, the proofs by which you proposed to 

 support them ; and the conclusions of law which you drew from them. 



Article IV j)rovides: 



Within three months after the delivery on both sides of the printed Case, either 

 party may, in like manner, deliver iu duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators aud 

 to the Agent of the other party, a Counter Case aud additional documents, corre- 

 spondence aud evidence in reply to the Case, documents, correspondence aud evidence 

 so presented by the other party 



The Counter Case is provided for there. A method is thus provided 

 by which each party might — not support his original Case — not that— 

 but by which he might reply to the Case of his adversary, contradict 

 his proofs, show them to be untrue, negative his allegations, contradict 

 his conclusions of law. That was the opi)ortunity which was afforded 

 by the Counter Case. 



The function of each of those documents, the office which it is to till 

 in this Arbitration, is carefully prescribed in the Treaty; so carefully 

 and so clearly that no one could, by any possibility, misinterpret it. 



I may be permitted to say something in relation to the mode followed 

 by the Government of the United States in the pre])aration of its Case; 

 and in order to do that, so that the learned Arbitrators may understand 

 it, I should allude very briefly to what the presumable nature of the 

 proofs was at the time when the parties were called upon to prepare 

 their original Cases. What were the questions'? I shall not stop to 

 read them from the Treaty, but shall describe them generally. 



In the first place, there were certain questions as to a jurisdictional 

 power or autlioiity over Behring Sea asserted by the United States to 

 have been in some manner derived from Russia, what my learned friend 

 Sir Charles Russell, has well enough styled a derivative title or right. 



In the next place, there was the question of the right of ])roperty in 

 the seal herds and in the industry established upon the Pribiloft" Islands 



