ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 97 



place it was provided there was to be o»e decision and only one decision; 

 and therefore it seemed to ns quite inadmissible that the idea should be 

 entertained that there were to be two hearings involving two separate 

 submissions of evidence. I need not argue tliat notion further, for it is 

 now declared by my learned friend on the other side to be simply non- 

 sense. So that it was very apparent to ns, and we never had any doubt 

 about it. that all the evidence that we had bearing- upon the controversy, 

 and whether upon the question of jurisdiction, or property, or regula- . 

 tions — all the evidence which Ave designed to submit in support of our 

 contention — must be submitted in the Case^ for that was the only means 

 jiointed out by the Treaty, by which any evidence except evidence in 

 reply could get into the hands of the Arbitrators. 



The Case of the United States was prepared faithfully in accordance 

 with that view. The whole mass of evidence by which they designed 

 to support their contention, whether bearing u])ou the question of juris- 

 diction, the question of property, or the (piestion of regulations, was 

 placed in the Case, and fairly and unreservedly aiul fully submitted to 

 the observation, the criticism, the answer, the denial, of the other side. 

 There was absolutely nothing withheld. We had gathered together a 

 multitude of depositions in reference to the nature and habits of the 

 seals, all establishing or tending to establish, as we sup[)Osed, that 

 their nature and habits were sucli as to make them the property of the 

 United Slates. We had gathered evidence tending to show that if the 

 Tribunal should come to consider the question of regulations, that no 

 regulations would be effective lor the purjiose of i^reserving the seals, 

 except absolute proliibition of pelagic sealing. We eximusted all our 

 means of information then available to us for tlie purpose of putting 

 before the Tribunal and putting into this Case, to the end that our 

 adversaries might consider it and answer it, every fact that we designed 

 to bring forward to sustain our contention in this controversy; and I 

 have not as yet heard it suggested ujion the other side that there has 

 been any withholding by us of the slightest circumstance from that 

 Case to which we have at an^' time resorted for the purpose of sui)])ort- 

 ing any of our contentions. Those Cases were, I think, in the month 

 of September, in the first week in September, exchanged. We deliv- 

 ered to the Agent of the British Government our Case, made up in the 

 manner in which I have described. We then received from them their 

 Case, and proceeded, of course, with interest to examine its contents. 

 What was our sur[>rise to find that in that Case of the British Govern- 

 ment not one item of proof in relation to the nature and habits of the 

 seal, or the mode by which they were pursued, not an item of evidence 

 bearing on the question of property, not an item of evidence bearing on 

 the question of regulations. What could be the intention of this? Is 

 it possible, we asked ourselves, that Her Majesty's advisers have been 

 of the opinion that they could safely submit the interests of Her Maj- 

 esty's Government to this Tribunal without any evidence at all upon 

 these subjects; or are they in some manner aware of our opinions 

 respecting the nature and habits of the seal, and believe that those 

 opinions are correct so that they cannot in any manner assail them? 

 What is the view which Her Majesty's Government entertain upon 

 these points'?- We were wholly at a loss. The thought did occur to us, 

 only to be dismissed, at first at least, but still the thought did occur to 

 us, "is it possible that the advisers of Her Majesty's Government have 

 deliberately conceived that they could withhold all evidence upon which 

 they designed to rely ui^on these questions until they have received our 

 (Jase and know what our position and our evidence is, and then for the 

 B S, PT XI 7 



