Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1893-04-06
The Presentation of the Case Before
the Tribunal.
MR.. PHELPS VERY SHARP RETORT
If He Had Been Guiding the Policy
of the United States, When
Great Britain Presented Her
Counter Case, the Arbitration
Would Have Stopped-The
United States Treated With In
justice and Humiliated-Sir
Charles Russell's Reply.

PARIS, April 5.-The court OF arbi-
tration regarding Bering Sea resumed
its session at IL a. m. TO day. Hon. h.
J. Phelps, counsel in behalf Of the Uni
ted States, continued his argument.
He contended that the British supple
mentary report was inadmisslble. The
admission Of new evidence at this stage,
Mr.. Phelps said, was a gross injustice
to the United States, because it de-
priyed the United States Of any chance
TO adduce rebutting testimony. Mr..
Phelps discourSed at some length on
the technical methods to be followed
under the treaty.
Sir Charles Russell, In replying to
Mr.. Phelps, in behalf OF Great Britain,
paid tribute to the late James G.
Blaine, whose ability, he said, was rec
ognized In both hemispheres.
After luncheon Mr.. Phelps continued
his argument for the rejection OF the
supplementary report OF the Bering Sea
commission. His address was inter
rupted several times by an exchange of
criticisms between the counsel for the
two powers.
"If had been guiding the policy Of
the United States," said Mr.. Phelps,
when IGreat Britain presented the
counter case at the last minute, would
then and there have refused to proceed
with the arbitration. Great Britain's
conduct was not only unjust, but deeply
humiliating for the United States"
Sir Charles Russell, in his reply, said
they had not expected such discussion
Of the legal character of the evidence
as that introduced by Mr.. Phelps. He
felt quite unprepared for this extraor-
dinary heat Oh the part OF the opposing
counsel. He was extremely surprised
that Great Britain should be charged
with injustice in her conduct OF the
proceedings preliminary TO the
meeting of the court. There was
no intention on the part Of Great
Britain TO use the report OF the
Bering Sea commission as bearing upon
the question of right before the court.
The counsel for the United States had
attempted throughout the sttings OF
the tribunal to force this matter upon
the commissioners as IL only one ques-
ton were before them. There were,
however, other questions than those OF
right to be settled. The tribunal was
dealing with the affairs Of an open
sea, in which were involved other rights
than those of Great Britain and the
United States, namely, the rights of
mankind. In the matter OF Great
Britain's and Americas rights, the ar
bitrators must act strictly as judges; in
the matter of the right Of mankind
they must acquit themselves as just
men.
Sir Charles Russell then justified the
production of the report of the Bering
Sea Commission, arguing from the terms
of the arbitration treaty between the
United States and Great Britain. II
the sole object Of the report was to as
sist tho tribunal to gain information as
to the regulation of the seal fisheries,
and to increase its knowledge of the
practical matters at issue, the report
then must be admitted to evidence un-
der the article governing the proceed
ure of the court of arbitration. Sir
Charles Russell then read the article in
question and the court adjourned. Upon
its reassembling he will resume his ar
gument