130 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



tlie oiigiual Case; but assuming for the purpose of argument, that it 

 bears upon tbe question of regulations only, wben, according to their 

 theory, is it admissible? It is admissible, according to their theory, 

 in a certain contingency, and in a certain contingency only; and what 

 is that? The decision by tlie board of Arbitrators adverse to the 

 United States upon the question of exclusive jurisdiction. Has that 

 decision been made? Certainly not. Therefore, upon their theory it 

 is not competent or admissible here. Let me ask whether it is admissi- 

 ble on the original theory of the British Government as modified by the 

 learned Counsel, who has so ably argued this question on their behalf. 

 How has he modified it? Why, he has said: "Any decision ; I don't 

 mean a formal decision, I mean an intimation." Has that intimation 

 been given? No more than the decision. 



There is another aspect in which evidence might possibly be admissi- 

 ble, and that is, if the Arbitrators themselves after they come to the 

 question of regulations, or when they are considering the questions of 

 regulations suggest that farther inquiries or further evidence is admis- 

 sible, then it might come. Have they made any such suggestion? 



Mr. Foster. — The provision is: " They may require a written or a 

 printed statement, or argument, or oral argument by Counsel." 



Mr. Carter. — I will read it: 



"And the Arbitrators may, if they desire further elucidation with 

 regard to any point, require a written or printed statement or argument 

 by Counsel upon it." I stand corrected. 



Mr. Phelps. — That is restricted to Counsel. 



Mr. Carter. — That is restricted to argument, and does not deal 

 with evidence. Therefore upon no possible interpretation, not even 

 their own, is this supplementary Report admissible, and I submit very 

 respectfully to the learned Arbitrators that it should be promptly 

 rejected and returned. That is the only just disposition which can be 

 made of that paper. 



I have concluded my argument in respect to that. I desire to make 

 one or two observations, not by way of argument upon this point, 

 because I have concluded that, and 1 am not going to attempt to take 

 it u]) again. My learned friend, Sir Charles Kussell, stated with some 

 emphasis that while the United States contended that evidence in rela- 

 tion to the nature and habits of the seals relevant to the question of 

 property and also relevant to the question of regulations, should be j) re- 

 sented in the original Cases and presented only there, that we had (uir- 

 selves acted in contradiction to that view and had incorporated evidence 

 of that character into our Counter Case contrary to our own views. 

 He referred in that connection, I believe, to the three reports of Capt. 

 Hooper and Capt. Coulsou which deal with the condition of seal life in 

 1892; and to the reports of certain Treasury officers, two or three of 

 them, also having relation to matters in 1892, 1 believe. I do not know 

 that he referred to anything else. That is all I remember. 



Let me say in reference to the pieces of evidence thus referred to 

 that they may in part be subject to the criticism which my learned 

 friend puts upon them. That is, that they so far relate to seal life as to 

 be germane to the main questions, and therefore properly the subjects 

 of insertion in the original Case. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I would like to interpose here. Sir, in order 

 to avoid, so far as may be possible, matters that are really not in con- 

 troversy. I was making no complaint of the insertion of that evidence. 

 I was pointing to tlie fact that it was evidence which from the nature 

 of the case we had no opportunity of in any way meeting or replying to. 



