New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-08
BEHRING SEA CONVENTIONS.
Mr.. CARTER ARGUES AGAINST ADMITTING
THE BRITISH SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT.
THE ORIGINAL CLAIMED TO BE THE INDIs-
PENsABLE PART or BOTH CASE AND
COUNTER-C AsE 49, POPULATIONS
THE FIRST CONSIDERATION.


Paris April flames c. Carter, counsel for the
United States. continued before the Behring Sea
Court of Arbitration to-day his reply to Sir Charles
Russclls plea for the admission to evidence of the
British supplementary report of the Behring Sea
Commission
The contention of the counsel for Great Britain
Mr. Carter said, had been that the question of
right in Behring Sea must be settled before the
matter Of regulations. The contention of the
United States from the beginning Of the dispute.
however. had concerned the regulations. The
United States had held. also, that for the settle
ment Of the property claim advanced by them
evidence Of seal life in Behring Sea was necessary
Such evidence was contained in the original
ports of the Behring Sea Commission, and, there
fore, these reports formed indispensable part of
the case and counter case. As for the supple
mentary report, it had not appeared in the matter
already referred TO. and it ought, therefore, 10 be
excluded from the evidence. Great Britain had
claimed the power under Article : of the Arbi-
tration Treaty, to inclnde the supplementary re-
port in the evidence. This article declared that
if it be decided that the concurrence of Great
Britain was necessary t. establish regulations. the
report OF the Joint commission should then be laid
before the tribunal with such other evidence as
either government may submit
This Great Britain bad contended was a right
to introduce evidence as TO the regulations, even
after the case and counter-casc had been closed
Article further provided that the reports
should not be made public until after being sub
mltted to the arbitratOrs, until it should he
seen that the contingency of their being used by
the arbitrators could not arise. II was thus
made obvious that the question at issue was a
crucial one for the arbitration. If the contention
OF Great Britain sustained. il must follow
that the question of right was to he decided
first and the question of regulation which the
United States regarded of prime importance
must Re reegatcd to second place
Mr.. Carter then read at length from Sir Julian
Pauncefotes correspondence in 800 to prove that
the question of regulation was then regarded
of the first consideration.
Baron de Courcel i.ei whether or not Russia
was party 10 the negotiations at that time
Mr.. Carter-I 90 not know, but l consider the
point unimpo!tant.
Sir Charles RUSSELL Communications with other
Powers Were held in view. | believe. 1t was
intended at first to ask for their active part.ci
patton in the convention
Baron de CoTrcel-I ask because if Russia was
communicated with, much weight would
attach TO the negotiations. Otherwise. the draft
OF the agreement would br merely an informal
document continuing private diplomatic con-
versation My question may appear pcdantIc
but diplomatic training leads me TO attach i'm
pcrtance to such matters. Communications with
hird Powers and weight TO such drafts.
Mr.. Phelps-This may he Important question
later on meantime, il is of secondary Importance
Baron de CouIcel-Lord Hannen lone of the
British arbifratQrsj directs my attention to a
dispatch from Sir Julian Pauncefote in which he
refers to communication with Russia.
Mr.. Phelps-This is matter of indifference
Mr.. Carter-The scheme was this: Experts were
appointed to draw up regulations for the zeal
fisheries il they failed to agree. then there
to be arbitration. No question of right or iuris
dictiOn was raised
In replying TO Mr. Carter, Sir Charles Russell
admitted that Sir Julian Paunccfotcs dispatches.
as far mentioned, were confined to questions of
regulation. This. he said, was due to the fact
that the intention then 10 consult Russia and
other Powers concerning the regulation Of the seal
fisheries: IL the correspondence We're further con-
suited, however, il would be found that separate
negotiations had proceeded simu ltancously on ques
Baron De ConrceI ask9d air Charles to produce
proof Of this statement, and Sir Charles quoted
from several dispatches that had passed between
Sir Julian Paurcefote and Lord Salisbury in May
$780, concerning rights and damages Since then
he added the question of regulation had disap-
peared as separate subject Of considerations and
all questions had been handled together in the
subsequent negotiations
The Court adjourned until Tuesday when it
VIII hold secret session. On "Wednesday the
proceedings will again be open to the public.