ORAL ARGUMENT OF MR. CARTER. 



SEVENTH DAY, APRIL 12™, 1893. 



Mr. CAE.TEU, Mr. President: it would be evidence of insenvsibilitj'^ 

 on my part if in opening the discussion upon the important questions 

 with which we are to deal I should fail to express my sense of the 

 novelty, the importance, and the dignity of the (;ase, and of the high 

 character of the Tribunal which it is my privilege to address. You, 

 Mr. President, in acknowledging the honor conferred u])onyou by your 

 election as President, expressed in appropriate language those aspira- 

 tions and hopes which are excited and gratitled by so signal an attempt 

 as this to remove all occasion for the employment of force between 

 nations by the substitution of reason in the settlement of controversies. 

 I beg to express my concurrence in those sentiments. 



Nor should I omit a grateful recognition of the extreme kindness 

 with which the agent and counsel on the part of the United States 

 Government have been received. Not only has this magnificent build- 

 ing with all its appliances been freely offered for the deliberations of 

 the Tribunal itself, but every aid and assistance which we as counsel 

 could desire have been freely extended to us. We recognize in this a 

 fine and generous hospitality, worthy of France and her great capital — 

 the fair and beautiful capital of the world. 



Mr. President, in reference to the statement which was made by my 

 learned friend. Sir Charles Russell, as to theoider of proceeding which 

 counsel have agreed to adopt, subject to the approval of the Tribunal, 

 I have only this to say; we do not admit that there is any s[)ecial onus 

 prohamU resting upon the United States to substantiate its own con- 

 tention in reference to the questions in dispute. Those questions, in 

 our view, are submitted to the Tribunal for examination and decision, 

 and it is for the counselon each side alike, to make good their respec- 

 tive contentions. Our own views m respect to the circumstances which 

 make it proper that the affirmative should be taken by the United 

 States are that they are the party seeking for the affirmative action of 

 the Tribunal in their favor. 1 have no more to add in reference to that, 

 and there is no essential point of difference between us. 



Touching the suggestion which you, Mr. President, have just made 

 respecting the importance of observing a separation between the ques- 

 tions of right, and those which concern regulations, I shall endeavor 

 to exactly comply with that reconnnendation. It will not be entirely 

 possible altogether to separate those questions, but the direet discus- 

 sion of them I shall keep entirely separate. Certain considerations 

 concerning the question of regulations will arise and become material 

 and important upon the argument of the question of property, but I 

 shall deal with the question of regulations in the argument of the 



5 



