136 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



about it. That position is, that tlie submission of the evidence to the 

 Arbitrators on the question of regulations at least is admissible at any- 

 time down to the final decision. It is indeed necessary for him to take 

 that position. For as I have already shown, there is no other ground 

 iTl)on which this paper is admissible, and it being necessary for him to 

 take that position he finally does take it, and says he does not with- 

 draw. I must say one word therefore in reference to it. If that is 

 true, the paper was admissible on the day when it was delivered. It 

 has been admissible everyday since then, and will be admissible down 

 to the last day on which we shall be engaged on the argument of this 

 question. If it was admissible the day before it was actually delivered, 

 it was admissible every day before that up to the time when the Coun- 

 ter Case was delivered and might have been incorporated into the 

 Counter Case as an appropriate part of that document. In other words, 

 the position of the learned Counsel is, that this Supplementary Report 

 of the British Commissioners, and any evidence like it directed to the 

 same point, is admissible at all times at the pleasure of Her Majesty's 

 Government with this single exception, that it is not admissible as 

 part of the original Case and could not have been put in there. That 

 ground they still assert. In other words, his position is, that the 

 British Government is able to lay before the Arbitrators on the ques- 

 tion of regulations such evidence as they please at any time and in any 

 manner, provided that they do not offer it at a time and in a manner 

 w hen the United States can reply to it. That is all the observation 

 that I have to make to this position. 



With these observations, and greatly regretting the inordinate 

 length, for which I may be perhaps in some way responsible, to which 

 this argument has been protracted, and with many thanks to the Arbi- 

 trators for the consideration they have extended to me, I take my leave 

 of this motion. 



Sir Charles Russell. — With your permission. Sir, I would claim 

 leave from the Tribunal, not to go over any point in my original argu- 

 ment or anything that has been advanced in reply to it, but to refer to 

 certain matters that have been introduced by my learned friend, Mr. 

 Carter, and not previously advanced in argument, which I have not had 

 the opportunity of dealing with. I mean the matter relating to the 

 diplomatic correspondence which took place in 1890 and the argument 

 sought to be based on that correspondence. I claim respectfully the 

 concession from the Tribunal, the o^jportunity in a very few words of 

 showing that my learned friend has entirely misconceived the purport 

 of that correspondence. 



Mr. Carter. — I must object to this. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Well, Sir, perhaps I ought to have said 

 this in addition, that if the Tribunal decide that that diplomatic cor- 

 respondence is relevant to the construction of the Treaty which is the 

 question before the Court, then I claim the right to answer that branch 

 of the discussion or argument; but, of course, if, as I shall contend, it 

 is not relevant, and if the Tribunal should have that view, I do not 

 seek the opportunity of replying. Should it, however, enter into the 

 minds of any of the Tribunal that it is relevant to the construction of 

 the Treaty, then I claim to point out the fallacy and the mistake under 

 which my learned friend labours. 



The President. — The diplomatic correspondence has been commu- 

 nicated to us as part of the information that it is necessary for us to 

 take into consideration, and, consequently, we cannot help considering 

 it as relevant, in a certain measure, to the Treaty under which our 

 powers are defined. 



