The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1893-04-08
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT.
NOW THE BONE OF CONTENTION IN
THE BEHRING SEA MATTER.
ar. Carter for the United statos Opposes
the Admission of ~ 10 Evidence as
Proposed by Great Britain.

PARIS. April Thames c. Carter.
counsel for the United States before the
Bshring Sea Court Of Arbitration. to-day
made his reply TO Sir Charles Russells
plea for the admission 10 evidence OF the
British supplementary report Of the Reh
ring Sea Commission. The contention
OF the counsel for Great Britain he said.
had been that the question Of right in
the Behrins Sea must be settled before
the matter Of regulations. The conten-
ton of the United States from the begin
ming Of the dispute. however, had con-
cerned the regulations. The United States
had held, also. that FOR the settlement
OF the property claim advanced by them.
evidence on seal life in the Behring Sea
was necessary. Such evidence was con-
tanned in the original reports OF the Ben
ring Sea Commission. and therefore these
reports formed an indispensable part Of
the case and counter case. As for the
supplementary report, IL had not APP
Ipeared in the matter already referred TO,
and 1t ought. therefore. % be excluded
from the evidence. Great Britain had
claimed the power under article Of the
arbitration TO include the supplementary
report in the evidence This article de-
clarcd that IL IL be decided that the con-
currence OF Great Britain be necessary
10 establish regulations. the report OF
the joint commission shall be laid before
the tribunal. with such other evidence as
either Government may submit. This
Great Britain hal construed as a right
TO introduce evidence as TO the rcgula-
tions. even after the case and counter |
case had been closed. Article further !
provided that the reports shall not be |
made public until after being submitted |
TO the arbtrators. or until IL shall be |
seen that the contingency OF their being |
used by the arbitrators cannot arise. IL |
was thus made obvious that the question |
at issue was a crucial one for the arbitra- |
tion, If the contention Of Great Britain !
was sustained, and II must follow that |
the question of right was 10 be decided |
fret, and the question Of regulation, which |
the United States regarded as Of prime
Importance. must be relegated 10 second
place.
Mr.. Carter then read at length from Sir
Julian Pauncefote's correspondence in
1890 10 prove that the question Of regula-
tons was regarded as one Of the first con-
sideraton.
Baron de Courcolle asked whether or not
Russia was a party to the negotiations
at that time.
Mr.. Carter: 81 do not know. but l con-
slider the point unimpOrtant"
Sir Charles RUSSELL Communications
with Otner lowers were nell In view 1
believe. II was intended at first to ask for
their active participation in the conyeE-
ton"
Baron de Courcelle: II ask because If
Russia was communicated with more
weight would attach 10 the negotiations.
Otherwis the draft Of the agreement
would bt. merely an informal document !
continuing a private diplomatic cCnver-
sation. My question may appear pedantc
but diplor attic training leads me to at
tach importance TO such matters. Com
with third powers add weight
10 such drafts"
Mr.. Phelps: This may be an important I
question later on. meantime, It is Of sec {
ondary importance" ?
Baron de COurcelle: "Lord Hammer 6
british arbitrator directs my attention
TO a dispatch from Sir julian Pauncefote. 3
In which he refers to communication ]
with Russia" T
Mr. Phelps: This is a matter of in Z
difference" !
Mr.. Carter: The scheme was this: Ex- h
perts were appointed to draw up regula- v
tons for the seal fisheries; IL they failed {
10 agree then there was TO be arbitration. C
No question CT right or Jurisdiction was 2
raised
In replying to Mr.. Carter Sir Charles
Russell admitted that Sir Julian Paunce-
ortes dispatches, as far as mentioned,
we're confined 10 questions OF regulation. l
This, he said, was due to the fact that !
he intmation then was to consult Russia J
md other powers concerning the regula- y
ions of the seal fisheries. If the cor 1
were further consulted. how y
yer. II would be found that separate ne
otiations had proceeded simultaneously
n questions or right and damages for :
eizurc. =
Baron de Courcele asked Sir Charles II
Russell to produce proof if this state u
nent. and Sir Charles quoted from sew
raj dispatches that passed between Sir
ulian Paunceforte ard Lord Salisbury in
lay 1890, concerning rights and damages +
inee then, he added. the question of a
equation had disappeared as a separate a
ubject Of consideration, and all ques- II
ons had been handled together in the
ubsequent negotiations. d.
The court adjourned until Tuesday, &c
hen II will hold a secret session. &c
On "Wednesday the proceedings will y
gain be open TO the public.