ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 119 



know tliat previous to tliis date, n few months previous, the British 

 INIinister, the Russian ]\iinister and tlie then Secretary of State, Mr. 

 Bhiine, were in active and frequent conference on tliis subject. 1 shall 

 have to refresh my memory as to the precise date of their (conference in 

 connection with this matter, and I am not, therefore, prepared at this 

 time to give an explicit answer as to whether this particular proposition 

 was formally submitted to the Russian Minister or not. That can at a 

 later stage, before the discussion closes, be answered. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I may say. Sir, that I am in a position to 

 state to the Tribunal what the facts were on this point. It was contem- 

 plated, as the concluding Article shows, that the accession of other 

 Powers should be invited to the Conventi(m; and there were communi- 

 cations with other Powers, but no other Power became a party to the 

 Convention. 



The President. — You will see that this is not a Convention but a 

 draft of a Convention; and the purport of my interrogation was this. 

 The authority of the draft, which is submitted to us by Mr. Carter, and 

 used as a part of his argument, will have more or less to be taken into 

 consideration according to the stage of diplomatic proceedings which 

 it indicates. Of course, if it had been communicated to Russia, Mr. 

 Phelps as a Diplomatist would certainly acknowledge that it would 

 have had more consistency, and, consequently, more importance, than 

 if it was merely a sort of informal draft or a sort of continuation of 

 private conversations between the American and English Governments, 

 or their representatives. 



Mr. Phelps. — My learned friend is right in saying that at no time in 

 the progress of these negotiations was any Convention actually entered 

 into between the United States and Russia; nor did Russia become 

 formally a party to any convention between the United States and 

 Great Britain; but in the years 1887 and 1888 at any rate, when these 

 negotiations were first commenced on this subject, the representatives 

 of Russia in London, as the correspondence tliat is before you shows 

 (though I cannot at this moment refer you to the particular pages), 

 were invited to participate and did participate and gave informally 

 their sanction to the Agreement and their promise to join it if it should 

 be consummated, but as it never was consummated at any time, that 

 fell through. The correspondence, as I have said, — the diplomatic cor- 

 respondence — during those years will prove that. How it was as late 

 as 1890, I am at this moment unable to say, — whether there was any 

 correspondence with Russia at that time or not. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Might I point out. Sir, that the draft Con- 

 vention, as to which you have asked the question, is the one submitted 

 in the year 1890, as Mr. Phelps points out, long after the date he refers 

 to of communications with Russia. Whatever may have passed with 

 reference to communications upon other matters, it will be found in the 

 correspondence that that draft Convention was not submitted to Russia, 

 nor were they asked to become parties to that; and I think it will 

 appear from the concluding words of Article 12 of that draft, that 

 " The High Contracting Parties agree to invite the accession of the 

 other Powers to the iiresent Convention" — I think it will be found, when 

 the correspondence is traced, that the draft Convention was not sub- 

 mitted to Russia. 



Mr. Phelps. — I may say, Sir, that we will have references prepared 

 and submitted to the Tribunal as to this correspondence on either side. 



The President. — However, it was drawn up in such a way as to 

 suijpose that Russia would be a party, so that the other parties, to 



