New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-07
RIGHTS IN BEHRING SEA.
SIR CHARLES RUsSELL's ANSWER TO MR..
PHELPs'S oBJECroNs-MR. CARTER AR
CUES AGAINST AN ERRONEOUS IN
ID nL- TT OF rrpI Ar1r
TERpRETATIox OF TIE TREATY.

TEEPRETATIoN OF TIE TREATY.
Paris. April 6.-In the Behring sea Court OF Arhi-
traton today Sir Charles Russell concluded his
ment in reply to the objections by f. j. Phelps
sci for the United States 10 the legal character OF
certain evidence offered by Great Britain, and J. c.
Carter replied 10 Sir Charles's arguments
In closing his TO Mr.. Phcps's proposal TO
exclude the supplementary report OF the British
Bchring Commissioners. Sir Charles Russell con-
tended that the objections OF the United States the
report the ground that IT had not been subject TO
control ion applied equally large
OF evidence in the United States counter
For instance. four reports made by captain Hooper
concerning seal life the Prlbylov Islands had been
Incorporated In the countercase. although these
evidence of the kind to which the United States had
objected when II came from Great Britain. These
reports, Ike much other similar matter, had been
used In the American case without provoking the
slightest protest from Great Britain. The supple
meniary report. which Mr.. Phelps had asked to have
excluded. did not contain any facts but simply
the results OF re-examination Of well known facts.
IN conclusion. Sir Charles Russell urged npon the
arbi,raors the necessity OF determining the question
OF light before dealing with the regulation Of the
seal fisheries. The British counsel, said would
do their utmost make This procedure
prevail
In opening his address in reply to Sir Charles,
Mr. Garter remarked that 1t was not a custom OF
the American Bar for counsel 10 introduce his own
personality In u case so as to lend weight 70 his
arguments. therefore. he would follow the ex-
ample set several times by counsel for Great Britain.
Proceeding then to the question at issue. he pointed
that when the United states delegates arrived
in Paris, the cases. far argument was con-
cerned, were finished. and both cases end counter
cases had long been closed. The United States Gov
ernment therefore, never imagined that further evl-
dcnce would be adduced. The United states Govern.
ment Of the opinion that 1t had much reason !"
complain of Great Britans conduct in the case,
but this had been passed over. That however al'o'
the case had been submitted. additional evidence
sbculd he brought forward contingency which
had never been contemplated by the representatives,
Of the American Government. They ADMITTED tha'
further oral argument might be necessary for the
purpose Of elucIdation. but surprise was the bi''
of the emotions they experienced when Inc Suppe-
mcntary report introduced They believed that
the only thing be done was TO return these docn-
ments ms the time for submitting new evidence was
long past.
We would not impue bad faith to the British
Government" said Mr.. Carter. "nor charge the Ii1'-
sb delecaes with entering upon this case. saying
we will teach these Yankees trick worth knowing
At the same time hold that opponents proceed
nm an erroneous Interpretation OF the Treaty OF Arbl-
tration.n
Mr.. Carter was still arguing on behalf Of the
American case when the court ADJOURNED
ouence Of such pleaders Attorney General Russeii
and Mr. Carter failed to awaken interest. Even the
members of the court seemed bored. and 1t wa,
noticed that the head Of SIR John Thompson' one Oh
the British arbitrators. frequently ncddcd sussesus
the suspicion that he was tempted to slnmoer'
Iondon April I'm reviewing and comparing 'he
speeches Of Mr.. Phelps and Sir Charles Russell u,o
PARIS correspondent OF The Daily News" says III
struck me In listening to Mr.. Phelpss pleadings th'
under the cover Of attacks the Treaty OF Abrano'
there was great deal meant to tell against 'h' p'N
that agree 10 II at the White House, Hr 'h''I'S
pue.cu arc,,ed that this not case Tor s'lcHih
coscv 10 legal techncaltcs, but one Tor lo'"hs lo
IN. intentions OF these who signed the treaty. ho'
statements and counterstatements. be SAID 'oh'a'
n series Of depo,tionI which would mol De VAIN ''''
in ENGLAND or the United states as proofs. MI 'N-
,a =, ,ht. sort vyould be inaimis,ible " the case
had to be decided purely technical erouno' s''''
n, according 10 the natural laws of equity anu '"''
national considerations OF justice