104 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



yesterday. It was the intimation by Mr. Secretary Foster that the 

 Commissioners appointed on the part of Great Britain had waited, or 

 might wait, and, having obtained the Keport of the Commissioners 

 appointed by the United States before they piepared their own, might 

 prepare tlieir own with the advantage of a previous knowledge of what 

 the report of the United States Commissioners contained. Well, Sir 

 Charles made the observation that he thonght, — he hoped and believed — 

 that Mr. Foster wonld be sorry that he had made that imputation, as he 

 called it; and he expressed the view that it was a most serious impu- 

 tation upon Her Majesty's Commissioners, — the notion that they would 

 undertake to wait until after the Commissioners of the United States 

 had presented their views, and then present their own with the 

 advantage of a knowledge of the views of the United States Commis- 

 sioners before them. In the opinion of my learned friend, such a line 

 of conduct as that would be in a high degree objectionable and incon- 

 sistent with honorable sentiment, and he therefore expressed the regret 

 that Mr. Foster had as he thought — although I do not think it is quite 

 apparent upon Mr. Foster's statement, made such an imputation as that. 



I have to say that the imputation upon the character of the Commis- 

 sioners of Great Britain, if made by anybody, has been made by my 

 learned friend, and not by Mr. Foster. If it be an objectionable thing 

 on the part of the Commissioners of Great Britain to make up a report 

 ujion the subject committed to them, with a knowledge of what had 

 been reported by the Commissioners of the United States and at a time 

 when the Commissioners of the United States conld not answer it — if 

 that be an objectionable j)roceeding inconsistent with sentiments of 

 honour — the Commissioners of Great Britain, allow me to say, have 

 done it. This very Supi)lemeutary Keport is made up, is it not, with 

 full knowledge of what the Commissioners of the United States have 

 said and with all the advantages possessed by such full knowledge. It 

 may be said, indeed, that the United States Commissioners may now 

 if they clioose, reply to it. No, they cannot. The Government of the 

 United States has already declared in the most solemn manner that 

 according to its views of the interpretation of the Treaty the submission 

 of documents for evidence of any character to this Tribunal expired 

 long ago. They knew upon the other side that we could not answer it 

 according to our view of the Treaty. Therefore if there is any imputa- 

 tion upon the conduct of the Commissioners of Great Britain, it is an 

 imputation not made by us, but by the other side. 



Xow this letter of Mr. Secretary Foster was a conciliatory one offer- 

 ing an opi)ortunity to Great Britain to repair as far as possible — it 

 could not be wholly repaired — the disadvantage done to the United 

 States by the mode in which the Case was prepared. It was responded 

 to by Lord Eosebery on the 13th October, 1892. He proceeds in that 

 answer to defend the manner in which the Case on the part of Great 

 Britain had been made up and to say that the omission of evidence in 

 relation to the nature and habit of seals was proper, that any introduc- 

 tion of evidence upon that point into the case would be improper, and 

 that the introduction of evidence upon those points in the United States 

 Case was also improi)er, as I understand him. 



"The Government of Her Britannic Majesty" he says "can not admit 

 that there is any foundation for these complaints, which seem to be 

 based upon a construction of the Treaty which, in their belief and in 

 the opinion of their advisers, is erroneous. The scheme of that Treaty 

 provides that the Ave questions submitted in Article VI should be kept 

 distinct from, and that the decision thereon should be i)rior to, the con- 



