POINTS IN REPLY TO THE BRITISH COUNTER CASE. 315 



may be made the subject of trial at the same time, and yet the nature 

 of the decision be such as to dispense with the necessity of determin- 

 ing all of them. 



Assuming that the interpretation of the treaty insisted upon by the 

 counsel of the United States is the correct one, the procedure adopted 

 o.. the part of the British Government is wholly irregular and unau- 

 thorized, and the matter thus irregularly sought to be introduced before 

 the Tribunal should be excluded from its view. Otherwise the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States would be placed under a disadvantage to 

 which it should certainly not be subjected. 



In the first place, all the testimony and proofs, which bear alone upon 

 the question of regulations, would come before the Tribunal without any 

 opportunity on the part of the United States for making an answer to 

 it. No such possibility is contemplated by the treaty, nor should it be 

 allowed. No proceeding is entitled to the name of a judicial one which 

 allows one party to introduce proofs without giving to the other an op- 

 portunity to meet and contradict them. 



There is another disadvantage scarcely less onerous: The govern- 

 ment of Great Britain in thus waiting until the proofs of the United 

 States had been offered secured to itself the very great and unjust ad- 

 vantage of obtaining a knowledge of its adversary's Case before com- 

 mitting itself to its own view. It was thus enabled to withhold evi- 

 dence which it would otherwise have introduced, and to give evidence 

 which it would otherwise have withheld. Such advantages at once de. 

 stroy that equality between contesting parties which is a prime requi- 

 site of every judicial proceeding. 



But matter bearing upon the question of property was, even in the 

 view of the Government of Great Britain, relevant in the original Case, 

 and any evidence or proofs which the Government of Great Britain de- 

 sired to submit upon that point ought to have been embraced in their 

 original Case. Manifestly, everything relating to the nature and habits 

 of the seals is of this character. It is upon these that the question of 

 property depends. All matter of this description, except such as plainly 

 tends to impeach and was designed to irnpeach the evidence offered by 

 the United States, should have been exhibited in the original Case, and 

 should not be allowed to be introduced under cover of the Counter Case. 

 Surely it can not be the privilige of Her Majesty's Government to so 

 introduce its proofs as to deprive the United States of all opportunity 

 either to answer or impeach them. 



