The Portland daily press., 1893-04-08
RIGHT OH REGULATIONS.
One Of the Fine Points Before the
Court Of Arbitration.
WAR TO THE DEATH in BRAZILIAN
PROVINCES.

Other Foreign News-striking Dock
Laborers in Pitched Battle in an Eng
Iish City-They Attempt the Capture of
Vessel on Which Non-Union Men
Worked-A London Papers Fling at
Chicago-FIow the Sultan's Steamer
Was Sunk.
PARIS, April flames c. Carter,
counsel for the United States, continued
before the Bering Sea court of arbitra-
ton today his reply to Sir Charles Rus
sells plea for the admission to evidence
of the British supplementary report of
the Bering Sea comm ission. The con-
tention of the counsel for Great Britain,
he said, had been that the question of
right in Bering Sea must be settle 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 settle
ment of the property claim advanced by
them, evidence on seal life in Bering
Sea was necessary. Such evidence was
contained in the original reports of the
Bering Sea commission. Therefore,
these reports formed an indispensable
part of the case and counter case. The
supplementary report had not appeared
in the matter already referred to and
ought to be excluded from the evidence.
Great Britain had claimed power, under
article seven of the treaty of arbi-
tration, to include the supple
mentary report in evidence.
This article declared that if it be de-
cided that the concurrence of Great Brit
ain would be necessary to establish regu-
| lations, the report on the joint commiss-
ion should then be laid before the tri-
bunal with such other evidence as either
government may submit This Great
Britain construed as right to introduce
| evidence as to the regulations, even after
| the case and counter-case have closed.
| Article nine further provided that the
reports should not be made public until
after they were submitted to the arbitra-
| tors or until it should be seen that a
contingency of their being used by the
| arbitrators could, not arise. 1t was thus
made obvious that the question at issue
was crucial one for arbitra-
ton. If the contention of
Great Britain was sustained, it
must follow that the question of right
4 should be decided first and the question
| of regulation, which the United States
| regarded as of prime Importance. must
be relegated to second place. Mr.. Car
ter read at length from Sir Julian
Pauncefote's correspondence of 1890 to
| prove that the question of regulation
was then regarded as one of first consid-
GRAFTON. Mr.. Garter said that experts
were appointed to draw up regulations
| for the seal fisheries, and if they failed
to agree there was to be an arbitration.
No question of right OF Jurisdiction was
not raised.
/ Sir Charles Russell admitted that Sir
Julian Pauncefote's dispatches, as far
as mentioned, were confined to questions
regulation. This, he said. was due to
the fact that the intention then was to
consult Russia and other powers con-
cerning the regulation of the seal fish
cries. If the correspondence was fur
ther consulted, however, it would be
found that separate negotiations pro-
ceeded simultaneously on the questions
of right and damages for seizure.
| Baron de Courcel asked Sir Chas. Rus
sell to produce proof of this statement,
| and Sir Charles quoted from several de-
| spatches which passed between Sir Jul
| ian Pauncefote and Lord Salisbury in
May, 1890, concerning rights land dana
ges. Since then, he added, the question
of regulation had disappeared as a sepa
rate subject of consideration and all the
| questions were handled together in sub
| seouent negotiations.
The court adjourned until Tuesday
when it will hold scored session.