128 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



time for its submission does not arise until the Arbitrators have made 

 their decision upon the first five questions;" and therefore the Arbi- 

 trators nnist make their decision witliout the benefit of sucli evidence. 

 They ])rotested that it ouglit not to be put into the original Case; that 

 the action of the United States Government in incorporating such evi- 

 dence in tlieir original Case was irregular, improper, and not allowed 

 by the Treaty. They reserve the right to move this Tribunal to strike 

 it out. Tliey have committed themselves sqnarely to it; and yet what 

 I have the honor now to say is, that by their conduct they have refuted 

 their own inter})rotation, and in addition to that, bearing in mind what 

 was communicated tome by Mr. Arbitrator Harlan, it is expressly said 

 by them that the facts of seal life are relevant to the question. 



I may also say that in their Counter Case, dealing with the facts of 

 seal life, and arguing the question of property, they use over and over 

 again the re])ort of their Commissioners, which they refused at first to 

 incorporate into their original Case, but which they afterwards, as the 

 Arbitrators will remember, fnrnished to us at our request upon the under- 

 standing that it should be treated as a part of it. 



The President. — Had not the British Govenmient agreed to incor- 

 porate at your demand the report of their Commissioners into the orig- 

 inal Case before the Counter Case was delivered? 



Mr. Carter. — They had. They delivered their original Commission- 

 ers' rei)ort, and agreed that it should be treated as a part of their orig- 

 inal Case. We accepted it on that understanding, but with the under- 

 standing also that it sliould be all the evidence upon which they would 

 rely as to the questions respecting the nature and habits of seals, the 

 question of property and the question of Eegulations. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — Oh no! 



The President. — Do you not think it was legal for them to use the 

 evidence of the report in the Counter Case, since the Counter Case 

 came after that admission of the report? 



Mr. Carter. — Perfectly so. 



The President. — I mean do you object to that"? That is what I 

 enquire about. 



Mr. Carter. — Not at all. I am not disputing the propriety of that. 

 It was entirely proper. I only meant to say that their Uvse of the original 

 report in their Counter Case while arguing the question of property 

 shows that that original report is relevant to the question of proj)erty. 

 If relevant to the question of property, it ought to have been put into 

 their original Case. 



In their argument they follow the same method. On i)age 27 they 

 have a part two, and that is entitled "Argument addressed to the fifth 

 question for decision under article six of the Treaty of Arbitration, 

 namely: "Has the United States any right of protection or property in 

 the fur-seals". And they go on in that argument, and make the basis 

 of it, their understanding of the nature of the habits of the seal. That 

 argument goes through many pages. 



This is all I have to say, and certainly it is not necessary that I should 

 say anything further, in order to show that the contention made in argu- 

 ment, made in diplomatic correspondence on the part of the British 

 Government, that evidence touching the nature and habits of fur-seals 

 is not relevant upon the question of property is not only — begging the 

 pardon of my learned friends — preposterous upon its face, but has been 

 refuted by their own action in a great variety of forms. 



N(jw, why did they y)ut evidence in relation to the nature and habits 

 of seals into their Counter Case? Why did they put it there? They 



