ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 129 



profess to say that it does not apply to tlie five questions stated, that 

 it is relevant only to tbe question of regulations; that the consideration 

 of the question of regulations is not yet in order, that it will not be in 

 order until the arbitrators have made a decision adverse to the United 

 States — that then, and then for the first time, will it be relevant; and 

 yet, notwithstanding that view, they have crammed their Counter Case 

 with it to repletion. Why did they do that? What is their own excuse 

 for that course so inconsistent with their own view? They said they 

 did it out of deference to the views of the United States. Out of defer- 

 ence to the United States! That is to say — for such is the distinct 

 implication — the United States desired it. That is the implication ; that 

 is the inference — that the United States Government desired it. 



What! The United States Government desire that the British Counsel 

 should put into their Counter Case what they had left out of their 

 original Case, and what ought to have been put there? Why, no. The 

 position of the United States was that anything in reference to the 

 nature and habits of seals which you have to submit is to be put into 

 the original Case. If you do not put it into the Case and at the time 

 when that is submitted, you must never put it in. That is the position 

 of the United States, was at the first, has always been, and is now ; and 

 yet they say that out of deference to the views of the United States 

 they contradicted their own theory and inserted it in the Counter Case ! 



The insertion of that matter in the Counter Case is the great thing 

 to which Ave have objected. We object to that, and have objected all 

 along, on the same grounds upon which we object to the reception of 

 the present supplementary report of the British Commissioners. 



Now then, let me approach the i>o\\it now before this Tribunal. 

 What is it? It is whether a certain document that has been placed 

 before the Tribunal of Arbitration should be retained or should be 

 returned to those who sent it. That is the question before you. Is 

 the submission of that paper defensible upon any possible view? On 

 the view entertained by the United States concerning the interj)reta- 

 tion of the Treaty, of course it is not ; and I am not going to repeat 

 my argument upon that x)oint, but to assume that I have sufflcieiitly 

 established it. On our interpretation it is a wholly inadmissible pro- 

 ceeding to submit such a paper as that in the manner in which it was 

 submitted. What is the character of the paper? I don't know. I 

 have never seen it, and I have no information about it; but I suppose 

 I may say that it is to be presumed to have a bearing upon the merits 

 of this controversy. If it has not any bearing upon the merits of this 

 controversy, why of course it should not be received. It must be pre- 

 sumed to have a bearing upon the merits of this controversy. The 

 very fact that it is submitted shows that. 



What bearing may it have? It may contain either arguments or 

 evidence, or, as they euphemistically style it, "trustworthy informa- 

 tion". If it contains arguments alone, it is improperly submitted. 

 Learned counsel are to argue the case of the British Government, not 

 these Commissioners. If it contains evidence bearing upon this con- 

 troversy, then as I think I have succeeded in showing, it is wholly 

 inadmissible. I have now to submit to the learned Arbitrators that it 

 is inadmissible uj)on their view of the Treaty — the view of the counsel 

 of Great Britain. 



What is their view of the Treaty as to the time when they are per- 

 mitted to submit evidence, even supposing that it bears ujion the ques- 

 tion of regulations only? If it bears upon the question of property, 

 they must admit that it is admissible and only admissible as a part or 

 B S, PT XI 9 



