258 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



nieiit, accordiii^n" to their own eoiivenieuce. AVe liavo merely asked the 

 counsel in tlie proceeding- here :is nuich as they would deem it possible, 

 to treat separately in two distinct parts of tlieir iii',i;nment the legal 

 questions wliich are enumerated in article VI of tlie Treaty, and the 

 question of regulations which is alluded to in article VII. Tliis, I 

 notice, Mr. Carter is prepared to do. He has been dealing until now 

 with the legal questions, and I think he is coming now to the points 

 which are referred to in article VII. Consequently that is quite accord- 

 ing to what we ask you to do, and we are mucli obliged to you that you 

 do it. The counsel for Great Britain ask for no oi)inion on the part 

 of the Tribunal and consequently the counsel for Great Britain will be 

 free to treat the matter according to their own convenience, either sepa- 

 lately in two distinct arguments, or else in the same way as Mr. Carter 

 has dealt with it. I conceive that with the agreement of all parties 

 Mr. Carter is free to continue his argument as he intended. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. If the President means to say for the Tribunal 

 that there is a recognized right of counsel to make two arguments, first, 

 on the live ([uestions luimed in article i\ and after that, at some future 

 time, to claim a right to enter into a distinct argument as to regula- 

 tions, I do not concur in that view. And 1 do not understand that the 

 Q'ribunal have so decided. I do not think we need to retire to consider 

 that. I make these observations so that it will not hereafter be said 

 that the right is reserved to cut this argument in two and to have this 

 Tribunal make an intimation as to our conclusions upon the first five 

 points in article VI and thereby inform the public of our conclusions 

 upon those ]>oints before we take up tlie subject of regulations. I do 

 not wish to be understood as concurring in that view. 



Lord Hannen. That is a ditierent question. We have not expressed 

 any opinion, or attem])ted to come to a conclusion upon that point other- 

 wise than is indicated by Mr. Justice Harlan. I regret that there is a 

 ditference between us as to what was agreed ujion; but perhaps we can 

 consider that at our adjournment. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. I do not understand that there is any differ- 

 ence between us as to what we have decided. We did agree that 

 counsel should proceed in their argument as they should deem proper 

 covering these (juestions. 



But I understood the President a moment or two ago to say that the 

 Tribunal had decided, or were to be understood as having decided, that 

 the counsel for the British Government could proceed with his argu- 

 ment on the main questions according to his own pleasure, and, at some 

 future time, after an intimation of our opinion upon the first five points, 

 make an argument upon the subject of regulations. I understood coun- 

 sel at an early stage of our proceedings to say that he would claim 

 those rights. I only intervene now to say that I have not understood 

 that the Tribunal have decided any such thing, or that we have con- 

 sidered that matter. 



The President. I believe that the counsel for Great Britain do not 

 now ask us to deliver any sort of opinion after they have treated the 

 legal i)oints. I merely understood that they ask to be allowed that 

 several of them might speak and argue upon the legal points and, after 

 that, resume the argument about the regulations. That is a mere mat- 

 ter of division of work between themselves. One of them will begin 

 speaknig about legal points; another will continue about legal points 

 and then afterwards resume the argument with reference to the regu 

 lations. 



