112 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



to .submit tlie evidence upon the subject of regulations to the Tribunal 

 until after tlie decision upon the points mentioned in re.i>ard to the 

 exclusive jurisdi(;tion over Behrin<^- sea. That is their position still. 



My learned friend, in the course of his argument yesterday, I think, 

 in speaking of the course whu-li Her Majesty's Agent had pursued iu 

 the matter, said: "Why, we did it in good faith; we did all of this in 

 good faith. You don't deny that, do you? We told you about it"; 

 And he read this extract from their Counter Case, apprising us of their 

 interpretation: (Mr. Carter read the passage). 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — We also mention it at page 1G6 D in the 

 Counter Case. 



Mr. Carter. — Would you like me to read anything there? 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — No; I merely meant that there is a dis- 

 tinct reference to this particular document. 



Mr. Carter. — Do I charge bad faith in tliis matter? I have under- 

 taken to avoid it. Do I really believe tliat Her Majesty's Agent and 

 his advisers when they came to prepare the Case of Great Britain in 

 this important controversy, said to themselves in eflect: " VVe will 

 teach these Yankee lawyers a trick worth knowing in regard to the 

 manner in which the Case may be made up, whereby we can get the 

 o])]iortunity of answering their allegations and evidence and dej)rive 

 them of the opportunity of answering ours." Do I believe that these 

 gentlemen concocted any such scheme as that? No; I don't believe it. 

 1 would not believe it. No consideration would induce me to believe it. 

 I do not think it. I cannot help saying that I think they have acted 

 under an erroneous impression as to the interpretation of the Treaty; 

 and 1 cannot thiidv that they gave to the interpretation of the Treaty 

 that study which its importance demands. 



But the question of good faith or bad faith is wholly unimportant 

 as far as the results are concerned. The advantage in either case, they 

 got. It does not diminish the magnitude of the advantage which they 

 derive from the course which they took that they did not contrive for 

 it. 1'he advantage which they gained is as great, whatever view may 

 be taken of that matter. 



So also they say: "Why, we told you that we did it." Of course it 

 was not necessary for them to tell us they had done it, when we looked 

 into their Case and saw it did not contain a single word in reference 

 to the nature and habits of tlie fur-seal, and contemplated the possi- 

 bility that they might fill their Counter Case witli evidence of that 

 character. We saw that they liad gained their advantage, and it was 

 not necessary for them to tell us so. 



If they were going to mnke the case any better by telling us any- 

 thing about it, tlie time to have told us about it was before the time 

 for tlie exchange of the Cases. That was the time. We might then 

 have considered how we Avould make up our Case if they proposed to 

 make up theirs iu that manner. 



Now, my learned friend has re-stated the interpretation of Great 

 Britain. Upon that interpretation I am going to make, not many 

 observations, but a few, for the purpose to some extent, of showing 

 that they are entirely erroneous. The learned counsel, has dispensed 

 with the necessity, for he says that in part at least, it is erroneous. 

 He says that the notion of two hearings and two decisions is nonsense. 

 He says it is nonsense. I have not said that. Those are his own 

 words in reference to it. But 1 wish to show that it is entirely erroneous. 



In the tirst place, what is the question? The question is as to the 

 time and the manner in which evidence is to be submitted to the Arbi- 



