ARGUMEXTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 109 



tage slie could not be wholly deprived of, but it might be reduced if the 

 United States were tlien furnished with all the evidence upon Avhicli 

 she intended to rely to support her contention in regard to the nature 

 and habits of the seals. This Eeport of the British Commissioners with 

 its ap])endices was submitted to the United States as being all that they 

 intended to rely upon, except what they were permitted to rely upon by 

 way of reply, and accepted by the United States in that sense, and I 

 think we are justified in saying there was a pretty well understood 

 agreement entered into that tlie Counter Case of Great Britain wouhl 

 contain no new evidence upon the nature and habits of seals of a char- 

 acter which would have supported the original contention and which 

 would properly have found a place in the original Case of Great 

 Britain. 



Now I come to the reception of the Counter Case. In due time the 

 Counter Case on the part of Great Britain arrived and was examined 

 by us and what did we find? That it contained no new evidence in 

 addition to that furnished by the Report of the British Commissioners 

 and its Appendices in rehition to the nature and liabitsof the fur sealf 

 Far otherwise! It had reams of evidence directly bearing on their 

 nature and habits; it had depositions almost witliout number concern- 

 ing the nature and habits of the fur seals. Some of these depositions 

 and evidence, bore u])on their face that they had been in the posses- 

 siou of Great Britain long before the original Case had been submitted 

 to us. Others were of a different character; but almost tlie whole of it 

 was evidence which would have been perfectly competent to have been 

 put into the original Case, because it was perfectly germane to the con- 

 tention by Great Britain as to the nature and habits of the fur seals. 



Everything, of course, in relation to the nature and habits of the fur 

 seals, everything tending to shew at what time they come upon the 

 Islands, how long they remain there, the course of their migration, 

 whether they come back or not, or, whether, when the females go out 

 upon Behring sea they go out for the purpose of food, and how often 

 they go, all those things are pertineut and relevant to the question of 

 property, and will be alluded to, I venture to say, over and over again 

 when that question comes to be discussed, as substantiating the views 

 of Great Britain on that question of property. They are in no sense 

 new matter in reply to the evidence furnished l)y the United States in 

 its original case. There is a large amount of matter in the nature of 

 rei)ly there. There is a large amount of matter of that character; but 

 the bulk consists of original evidence in respect to the nature and 

 habits of the fur seal, which ought to have been inserted by Great 

 Britain in its original Case if it intended to rely upon it at all. This 

 matter in reply was matter tending to impeach our evidence. That, of 

 course, is strictly evidence in reply. Numerous attidavits are in the 

 British Counter Case tending to shew that the witnesses we called, and 

 Avhose depositions were contained in our original Case were not to be 

 believed upon oath, or that they had not made the statements Avhich 

 they were represented in our Case to have made. 



The advantage which they had gained by the manner of making up 

 this case had been imi)roved to the utnu)st. The Pacific Ocean through 

 30° of latitude had been scoured to enable them to impeach our evidence. 

 We could not do that in respe(;t to their evidence because we did not 

 liave it. I do not complain of this replying evidence in the British 

 Counter Case. It was the advantage which they had gained by their 

 mode of making up their Case. We supposed that we had settled it, 

 but settled it upon the basis that no evidence other than that contained 



