142 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



view of tbe receipt of your Lordship's telegram of the 31st ultimo, and 

 in order to save time, I at once wrote a uote, a copy of which is also 

 inclosed, to Mr. Blaine in reply, in which I informed him that Her 

 Majesty's Government were not prepared to agree to such a Regulation 

 as was suggested by Mr. Blaine." 



]S[ow, Sir, I go on to the 4th June 1890. It is on page 484 — that is a 

 long communication from Mr. Blaine arguing on the question of Arbi- 

 tration or no Arbitration — it begins at page 484 but it ends at page 

 486 — where the question which I am putting forward is referred to, and 

 also urging the need for some i)reseut Eeguhition which should be 

 operative then and there as a temporary expedient, and the communi- 

 cation concludes on page 486: "The President does not conceal his 

 disappointment that, even for the sake of securing an impartial arbi- 

 tration of the question at issue. Her Majesty's Government is not will- 

 ing to suspend for a single season the practice which Lord Salisbury 

 described in 1888 as the wanton destruction" and so forth. 



From that date there is a complete and absolute disappearance of 

 the question of Regulations pure and simple, or of a Convention with 

 reference to regulations pure and simple; and it becomes, from that 

 point forward, until the 29th of February 1892, a discussion upon the 

 question of the Treaty which should embrace both Regulations, and 

 the decision of questions of riglit and damage consequent upon ques- 

 tions of right. I can go on with a multitude of documents to make 

 good this i)Osition. 



Mr. Carter. — Let me inform the learned Counsel that it will involve 

 a reply by us. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I beg your pardon. I am simply answering 

 the question of the President. 



The President. — Of course, Mr. Carter, your right to reply Is 

 reserved. 



Sir Charles Russell. — I am simply answering the question put to 

 me by the President. I have not interpolated (with one exception for 

 the sake of brevity) any remarks. The 7th June document is at page 

 511 of the same book. 



Mr. Phelps. — There is no dispute at all that at that stage, the whole 

 subject was discussed. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Very well. 



Mr. Phelps. — All the correspondence shews that. It is jirinted in 

 both Cases and on both sides. 



Sir Charles Russell. — 1 do not know, Sir, whether you or the other 

 members have gathered my friend's admission wliich I am grateful for. 



Mr. Phelps. — I do not think you quite understood me. Sir Charles, 

 if you will allow me. I do not wish to interrupt you, but I may per- 

 haps set you right upon this. I do not at all question, what all the 

 correspondence on both sides for a considerable period prior to the 

 execution of this particular Treaty shows, — that after the Governments 

 found that Regulations could not be agreed on, then the questions of 

 right were introduced and began to be discussed, the United States 

 claiming rights which Great Britain denied. And that then Great 

 Britain brought forward likewise the claim for damages the Government 

 thought they were entitled to if these claims of riglit failed. I do not 

 deny tliat at all. All that I set out to say was, and all the importance 

 that I attach to it at this stage is, that in the beginning of this contro- 

 versy, there was nothing at issue excepting the adoption of Regula- 

 tions that would preserve the seals, — nothing more. There were some 

 seizures in 1886; but the amount each now claimed is so small, that 



