ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 147 



surmounted, negotiations for a close season raight be commenced at 

 once, subject to adequate assurances against further seizures, which, I 

 think, I might be able to obtain." 



Therefore while it is true that Great Britain said, Before we m^U 

 reopen negotiations about regulations we must be satisfied in respect to 

 these seizures, Mr. Blaine replies, while we do not admit your right to 

 compensation we will offer you a lump sum in full satisfaction, if that 

 will enable us to get rid of this objection and there is not a question, if 

 they could have agreed on the other questions, this small matter would 

 have been settled. The United States would have paid the money and 

 made an end of it. As I said, the claims for seizures made in 188(5 were 

 a comparatively small sum, as the Tribunal will find when they come 

 to the merits of this case — a comparatively small sum. Mr. Blaine, 

 therefore, well said we would rather pay this small sum than go into 

 this interminable dispute in which we probably can never agree. 



The President. — May I ask Mr. Phelps to remind us at what date 

 comes the Agreement the terms of which are embodied in Article IX 

 of the Treaty, the Agreement for a joint commission. 



Sir Richard Webster. — It was signed on the 18th December 1801, 

 Sir. 



Mr. Phelps. — Tes, signed on that day. 



The President. — That is but one year after the correspondence we 

 have been hearing of. 



Sir Charles Russell. — A year and six months: the correspondence 

 begins in April 1890 and the arrangement is in December 1891. 



The President. — The observations made by Sir Charles Russell are 

 in a way opposed — I do not personally quite follow it — and as yet it is 

 my impression only — that they are opposed to your construction of 

 Article IX. They justify it historically. I do not say that they justify 

 it judicially, but simply historically, and your interpretation is in a 

 certain measure justified by the fact that there was a question of Arbi- 

 tration at the moment when this Agreement took place for a joint 

 Commission. That is what might be urged, I think. 



Mr. Carter. — The question was whether at the time when the first 

 proposals were made for Arbitration by the British Government there 

 were negotiations going on between the Governments for an Arbitra- 

 tion upon the question of right. 



Sir Charles Russell. — And damages. 



Mr. Carter. — And damages. 



The President.— Both parties agree on that? 



Mr. Carter. — Well, do both parties agree? My assertion was, and 

 I read from the letter of April 29th 1890, and its enclosure, the first 

 proposal suggesting any Arbiti'ation between the two Governments was 

 a proposal from Sir Julian Pauncefote; and that suggestion by him, 

 incorporating the framework of a Treaty for the purpose of Arbitration, 

 did not extend to anything but regulations. The question which I 

 understood the learned President to put was whether at that time there 

 were, outside of that letter, negotiations going on between the two Gov- 

 ernments, in reference to an Arbitration, having a broader extent than 

 that. The assertion of Sir Charles Russell was that there was at that 

 time, and that is what he undertakes to prove — but allow me to say he 

 has proved nothing of the kind, but proved the contrary — he has pro- 

 duced no letter written prior to that time, but subsequently; and most 

 of those he produced were communications, not between the United 

 States and Great Britain, but between different officers of Great 

 Britain — between Lord Salisbury aud Sir Julian Pauncefote —contain- 



