140 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



tion that sliould save these animals from extermination; and, as we 

 claim to have proved in our Case, that proposition was at once acceded 

 to by Great Britain, — a code or a proposed code from the United States 

 was invited, and it was furnished and was provisionally agreed upon, 

 and only the objections of Canada prevented its being carried into 

 effect. And what I said was, not that Great Britain then receded from 

 any claims for seizure, — hardly any, if any, had then taken place. 



Sir Charles Kitssell. — Oh ! yes. 



Mr. Phelps. — Well, there may have been, and I will not say there 

 was not. 



Sir Charles Russell. — 8 or 9. 



Mr. Phelps. — What I was saying was not that Great Britain receded 

 from any such claim or that the United States acceded to it; but that 

 nothing was said in regard to it on either side between the Govern- 

 ments in the whole course of this negotiation. When the Arbitration 

 came to be agreed upon, then the question of damages was imported 

 into the Case. All that is foreign to the point now before us, which is 

 what is the meaning of the word "Contingency" as affecting the time 

 when the evidence is to be taken, the time when the question is to be 

 heard, and on what evidence it is to be heard. 



The President. — Sir Charles, I think it is not proper to argue just 

 now upon the Regulations themselves, or as to either the origin or the 

 purport of tlie first draft; but I will merely ask you to be so kind as to 

 state on what authority is founded the assertion that you just made 

 that the Governments had contemplated the institution for an Arbitra- 

 tion on the legal points as separate from the Regulations'? 



Sir Charles Russell. — Certainly, Sir; I will give you the dates. 

 The draft of the proposed Convention is the 29th of April, 1890. I 

 refer you to page 461 of the third volume of the Appendix to the 

 British Case. 



The President. — Our documents have not the same paging as yours 

 have. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I think the first part is exactly the same. 

 This, you see, Sir, is within less than a fortnight of the date. 



The President. — Which date? 



Sir Charles Russell. — The 11th of May, 1890. You will find it is 

 number 334, Sir Julian Pauncefote to the Marquis of Salisbury — "As 

 to compensation for damages referred to in your Lordship's telegram 

 of the 9th instant," — that brings it still closer to the 30th, — "I have 

 prepared, after discussion with Mr. Tupper, a draft Arbitration Agree- 

 ment on the basis of your Lordship's instructions'?" The last line of 

 that document also I refer to. It is, "Proposal for Arbitrators and 

 Umpire will be agreed to by Mr. Blaine." 



The President. — Tbis draft Arbitration Agreement has not been 

 produced'? 



Sir Charles Russell. — No, Sir. 



The President. — We have not got it? 



Sir Charles Russell. — No, Sir; but what I am at present, of 

 course, referring to is to shew that my friend's position, that the pro- 

 posed Regulations, to which it was hoped Russia would be a party, 

 (lid not displace the claim for damages and did not displace the claims 

 of right upon which the right to damages depended, and that there 

 w^as, contemporaneously with the consideration of these Regulations, 

 that claim for damages and a proposal to arbitrate in reference to it. 

 That is shewn by the telegram of the 11th of May, which I have read. 

 If you will then, Sir, go to the document of the 22nd of May, a long 



