102 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



in our ]>iii)('ii)al Case. We did so fully, completely, uuieservedly. If 

 Great Britain liad any evidence on which she claimed that seals were 

 not the subject of in()i)erty, or not the property of the United States, 

 it was lier duty to submit it in the same manner in her Case, fully, 

 unreservedly and completely. 



She did not do it, nor did she submit an item of evidence upon that 

 point, but ])ostponed the consideration of it in the manner in which I 

 Lave stated. J^ow, therefore, haviui? called your Honors attention to 

 the excuse or apology, if excuse or apology it may justly be called, for 

 withholding from the Case evidence ujX)n that vital and important ques- 

 tion, I will proceed with the reading of Secretary Foster's letter: — "If 

 it were fairly to be inferred from this omission that no i^roofs on these 

 important points are intended to be otfered in behalf of Her JMajesty's 

 Government, no ground for criticism or objection by the Government 

 of the United States could arise, since it is within the exclusive ])ro\- 

 ince of either party to determine what evidence it will submit in 

 respect to any part of the controversy, or to refiain from submitting 

 any evidence at all; but sucli inference as to the course contemplated 

 by the British Government does not seem consistent with certain 

 statements made by its Agent in the piinted Case submitted by him". 

 And the Secretary then goes on to refer to the statements which I have 

 already read to the learned Arbitrators, and I will not repeat them: — 

 "It must be evident," the Secretary continues, — "to the Governmentof 

 Her Britaninc Majesty that, by the provisions of the Treaty, the ques- 

 tion whether the United States have any property interest in the seals 

 referred to and the question what concurrent regulations in the speci- 

 lied contingency may be necessary, are directly submitted to the Tri- 

 bunal; that the Treaty assumes that each party will or may have alle- 

 gations to make and evidence to ])roduceui)on botli questions; that the 

 plain contemplation of the Treaty is that each party shall state in his 

 Case what his propositions of law are and the evidence which will be 

 relied upon to bring the case under tlieni to the end that the otiier party 

 may have a fair opportunity of shewing in his Counter Case that such 

 evidence is untrue, or erroneous, or ]>artial, or subject to qiialilication 

 or explanation, for which purpose alone the provision for a Counter 

 Case was framed. The British Agent and Counsel must well know 

 that the decision of the two questions above referred to must depend 

 upon the evidence produced concerning the nature and habits of the 

 fur-seal and the methods of cai^turing and killing which are consistent 

 wnth the jireservation of the species; and that it is mainly upon these 

 points that collision and contradiction u^^on matters of tact and differ- 

 ences in res])ect to matters of opinion are exhibited by the statements 

 of persons likely to be made witnesses; that such witnesses are in 

 many instances under the influence of prejudice and bias and, in some, 

 open to the suspicion of insincerity and untruthfulness; and that the 

 only way by which either party may protect itself against the conse- 

 quences of falsehood or error is by having an opportunity to detect and 

 expose it. 



"The President cannot conceal his astonishment that it should be 

 assumed that the British Government is at liberty to introduce a whole 

 body of testimony of this character for the hrst time in its Counter 

 Case and thus shut out the United States from an opi)ortunity of detect- 

 ing and exposing any errors which may be contained in it. The Gov- 

 ernment of the United States cannot fail to be aware from the corre- 

 spondence that has hitherto taken place on this subject between the two 

 Governments as well as from full information derived from the repre- 



