148 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



iiig suggestions of what they would propose to the United States, but 

 not that they had been proposed to the United States. 



Now, my assertion is that at the time that that scheme was proposed 

 by Sir Julian Pauncefote there was no otlier suggestion of arbitration 

 pending between the two Governments. I said, at the same time, that 

 after that suggestion was made, not before, or at the time, the Govern- 

 ment did go on to discuss the question of Arbitration, and to introduce 

 other questions of right; but it Avas afterwards, and afterwards only. 

 At the time that that scheme Avas submitted, on April 29th 1800, there 

 was no other suggested scheme of Arbitration proposed on the part of 

 either Government, and it has not been proved to the contrary. Indeed 

 that statement has been confirmed by letters read by Sir Charles 

 Eussell. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — I want to ask as to a question of fact as 

 bearing on the meaning of the word " contingency" as used in Article 

 IX. I understand the Counsel for the United States to assert that the 

 terms of the agreement for the appointment of Commissioners was, iu 

 fact, reached or determined upon by the parties iu June 1891. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Yes. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Now I want to know if there is any dispute 

 on that fact. I do not say what it means or does not mean. 



Sir Charles Russell. — That is the fact. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — Yes; at that time, thougb the question of 

 Arbitration was under discussion and had been too for a long while, they 

 were not agreed as to the first six Articles till, say, November 1891, 

 and then on the 18th December 1891, both the terms of the Agreement 

 and the terms of the Arbitration were signed by the parties. Is there 

 any dispute as to those ftictsi 



Sir Richard Webster. — The dates are correct; but the first five 

 questions had been agreed to iu the early part of 1891, long before the 

 apix)intment of the Beliriug Sea Commissioners, April 1891, and pre- 

 vious to the appointment of the Behring Sea Commissioners, the date of 

 their appointment being the 22d June; there had been an arrangement 

 made — a correspondence between Mr. AVharton and Sir Julian Riiunce- 

 fote that the Commissioners should go out in order to obtain informa- 

 tion for the purpose of the Arbitration then agreed to. I can give you 

 the date of the letter if you desire it. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — If you could put them on a piece of paper, 

 and give them to me 1 should be obliged. 



Sir Richard Webster. — I can give them in a moment. Perhaps 

 the most im])ortant is the 14th April 1891, Mr. Blaine to Sir Julian 

 Pauncefote, which is a modification of the letter of the 17th of Decend)er 

 1890, read by Sir Charles Russell, stating the first five questions for the 

 Arbitration in the form which they ultimately took in the Agreement 

 of December. Those five questions had been settled for the purposes 

 of Arbitration as early as the 14th April 1891, — that is at page 29r) of 

 the first volume to the Case, — the United States Appendix; and in the 

 month of May or June there is the correspondence between Mr. VVHiar- 

 ton and Sir Julian Pauncefote, before theCommissionersAvere a])pointed, 

 that those Commissioners should go out in order to obtain information 

 which could be used in the Arbitration if necessary. 



The President. — The signature of those Articles was only on the 

 18th December — they get full authority only on the 18th of December. 



Sir Richard Webster. — The 18th of December, 1891, is the full 

 agreement. 



