120 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



wliicli Sir Kicluivd Webster alluded, would be parties other tliau Eussia. 

 It was to be a ( -onveutiou between three parties. 



Mr. Phelp!^. — There was a correspoiulenee between Mr. Bayard, who 

 was then Secretary of State of the United States, and various other 

 Powers on this subject, — Japan, Germany, and S(>ine others. So that 

 the United States from the character of their replies had a right to 

 expect, if they were fortunate enough to conclude a Convention with 

 Great Britain, that the adhesion of tliese other Po^yers would be given. 

 It was contemi)lated by both parties that the adhesion would take place, 

 if that was ratified between Great Britain and the United States. 



The President. — And Eussia? 



Mr. Phelps. — And Russia. 



Sir Charles Russell. — This is really very wide of the mark. 



The President. — My question was perhaps rather more a diplomatic 

 than a judicial one; but my dijdomatic colleagues will not be surprised 

 at the importance I attach to these details, because they know by the 

 practice of diplomatic life that a Convention would scarcely be prepared 

 by two parties when it is to result in a Convention between three. There 

 is a certain difference which my diplomatic colleagues on the Arbitra- 

 tion will understand; and that was the purport of my observation. 



Mr. Carter. — Permit me to say, Sir, that the interrogatory you have 

 been pleased to address to ns and the various answers given to it may 

 become at some time interesting at least, if not important — to know how 

 far Russia did participate in the negotiations in reference to a Treaty — 

 how far she was expected to participate, and when all such participation 

 ceased. For the present, however, I do not think those enquiries are 

 material; and, for the object for which I call the attention of the Tribu- 

 nal to the proposed draft Convention, they are wliolly, as I conceive, 

 immaterial. Tlie purpose which I have in view is to call the attention 

 of the Tribunal to the first suggestion of a settlement of this contro- 

 versy through the combined instrumentality of a joint Commission and 

 an Arbitration. 



The President. — In order to exhaust this, although Mr. Carter does 

 not find it quite material to the point, I would beg' permission to remind 

 him of an extract from the despatch of Sir .Julian Pauncefote to Mr. 

 Blaine received on April the 30th. It is in the appendix of the Case of 

 the United States, Vol. I, page 20G — the last paragraph of page 206. Sir 

 Julian Pauncefote says : " I have, out of a deference to your views and to 

 the wishes of the Russian Minister, adopted the Fishery line described 

 in Article V" — it is quite another object, but it proves that at that 

 time tliere was a communication with Russia — " and which was suggested 

 by you at the outset of our negotiations. The draft, of course contem- 

 plates the conchision of a further Convention after full examination of 

 tlie Report of the mixed Commission. It also nmkes i)rovisions for the 

 ultimate settlement by Arbitration of any differences which the report 

 of the Commission may still fail to adjust." That is the draft Conven- 

 tion which you were alluding to. 



Mr. Carter. — It is. 



The President. — It is the same draft. 



Mr. Carter. — It is. 



The President. — That proves that you were in communication with 

 Russia more than you thought yourself. That observation is rather an 

 advantage to you. 



Mr. Carter. — We may have been in the most intimate and daily 

 comnuinication with Russia for all I know, but whether that be so or 

 not, it is foreign to the purpose of my enquiry. 



