ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 137 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Tliat may or may not turn out to be the case. 

 We may look into it, and may come to the conclusion that it does or 

 does not interpret the Treaty. Whether that is our conchision, we 

 cannot know until we confer among ourselves. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Then, if that be so, I should claim to make 

 au observation limited to that part of the discussion. 



The President. — I think the observation of my learned colleague 

 goes to giving you leave to reply on the special points you hinted at; 

 but we must preserve also the right of the opposite party to reply to 

 your observations within the same limits, of course, — I mean, within 

 the same limits of time and of substance. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I will confine myself to five minutes, if my 

 learned friend, Mr. Pheli)S, will come under the same obligation. 



The President. — I do not imagine for a moment that you intend 

 arguing the case over again; in fact, you specially said that you did 

 not want to do so and that your observations will be necessarily lim- 

 ited in their nature and, consequently, necessarily limited in their time 

 which you will require to explain them. And, therefore, I would ask 

 the adverse party to keep within the same limits, — within analogous 

 limits of substance and analogous limits of time if possible. 



Mr. Phelps. — I was about to observe, Mr. President, unless the 

 point is decided, that the whole matter of the diplomatic correspond- 

 ence of 1890 as affecting this Treaty, was gone into in the opening. 

 The report of the opening argument which lies before you shows that 

 it was fully gone into. The correspondence was not perhaps read so 

 fully as it might have been, and I apologise for not having read it; but 

 I stated the substance of it, and the point was made very fully, whether, 

 clearly or not, that the meaning of the word "contingency" as it 

 occurs in this Treaty was to be found by referring to the previous 

 negotiations. 



yir Charles Russell. — With great deference, this is argument. 



Mr. Phelps. — No, I only want to state this, that the point was gone 

 into fully in the opening, and Mr. Carter, of course, went over the same 

 ground in reply to the views of the other side. I suppose we are enti- 

 tled to the opening and the close; I do not wish to be captious cer- 

 tainly, but I was about to submit that the argument ought to be 

 regarded as completed. If the Tribunal thinks otherwise, then I shall 

 claim the right to reply to Sir Charles. 



The President. — Yes. I do not think that we can preclude the 

 English Counsel from making fresh observations, if they think tit, on 

 what they consider is a new matter. Sir Charles, I think that was the 

 purport of your demand? 



Sir Charles Russell. — Entirely, Sir. I do not propose to refer to 

 anything except what is strictly and properly to be described as new 

 matter. I will observe the limits of time, and will undertake to con- 

 clude in five minutes, if not less. 



The President. — We have never found, as yet, that you speak too 

 long; and I hope you will not have any impression of that sort. 



Senator Morgan. — Is it understood that Mr. Phelps is to be limited 

 to five minutes ? 



Lord Hannen. — No; it is only a promise, of course. 



The President. — We should be the first victims of anything of that 

 sort; not only from being deprived of the pleasure that we have from 

 hearing Counsel, but also of their efforts which enlighten our minds in 

 this matter. 



