RELATING TO INTERPRETATION OF TREATY. 141 



except in rebuttal of that which may be introduced on the other side, 

 has been prepared and is printed in the American Case and its Ap- 

 pendices. 



The facts presented in the American Case are not new. They have 

 been the subject of long discussion and correspondence between the 

 two Governments, and of prolonged consideration by the Commissioners 

 of the respective Governments appointed many mouths before the 

 Treaty was celebrated, and whose functions, set forth in Article 9 of 

 that instrument, were to investigate the subject of seal-life and the 

 measures necessary for its protection. The opposing claims of the 

 Governments in respect to these facts have been recognized and under- 

 stood as constituting in one view to a large extent, and in another view 

 to the full extent, the controversy for the determination of which the 

 Tribunal of Arbitration has been created. If the Commissioners could 

 have agreed in respect to them, as was hoped and desired on both 

 sides, an arbitration might not have been necessary. It is therefore 

 impossible for the Government of the United States to believe, unless 

 it should be so assured by Her Majesty's Government, that it is the 

 intention of that Government to bring forward no evidence on these 

 points in its own behalf. 



If such evidence is to be offered hereafter in the British Counter Case, 

 the result of withholding it in the Case already delivered will be as fol- 

 lows: When presented iu the Counter Case t]ie United States Govern- 

 ment will have under the provisions of the Treaty no opportunity 

 whatever to meet it by rebutting proof of any description, but must 

 proceed immediately to trial without being able to offer any contra- 

 dictory, explanatory, or impeaching evidence. The Counter Case is 

 the last chance afforded by the Treaty for the introduction of any evi- 

 dence at all. It is therefore provided that the Counter Cases shall not 

 be exchanged until thirty days before the final submission of the ques- 

 tions for decision. And thus the whole body of the British evidence, if 

 reserved for the Counter Case, would only come to the knowledge of 

 the Government of the United States on the eve of the hearing, with- 

 out the privilege of answering it. 



Especially would such a method of trial prove injurious to the United 

 States Government in respect to that branch of the hearing that refers 

 to the regulations which the Tribunal is authorized to prescribe in its 

 discretion for the preservation of the seal herd from extinction, if in 

 the course of the consideration of the Case they should reach the con- 

 clusion that the United States Government can not demand such pro- 

 tection as a right. A strange misconception seems to exist in the mind 

 of the Agent of Great Britain that a hearing other than that provided 

 in the Treaty is to be afforded for the consideration of the question of 

 regulations, should the contingency therefor arise, and that another 

 opportunity than the Printed Case is to be granted for the submission 

 of evidence upon this question. 



It must be manifest from an examination of the Treaty that only one 

 opportunity is afforded each party to submit evidence on this question, 

 and that is to be availed of in the original Case, except so far as evi- 

 dence in rebuttal may be legitimate in the Counter Case. Should the 

 Arbitrators, in the course of their deliberations, find it necessary to 

 consider the question of regulations, the nature, extent, and efficiency 

 of the regulations to be framed must be determined entirely upon the 

 evidence already submitted, since the subject is one upon which the 

 Arbitrators can have no other knowledge than that thus afforded. 

 How far and how gravely the Governments are at issue upon this point 

 may be seen by reference to the correspondence regarding it between 



