New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-05-13
THE CASE WAS hESIATEU.
MR.. PiIELPS'S REPLY TO SIR CHARLES RUS
SELL BEFORE BEHRlNG SEA COURT

AN AcHID DISCUSSION OVER THE FoEGERIEs
IN THE ORIGINAL AMERICAN CAsE-THE
SEIZURE OF SEALING vEssELs-TuE
DISAGREEMENT OF THURSDAY
Paris. Nav l2.-Sir Charles Russell continued his
address In behalf of the British before the
Behring Sea Tribunal OF Arbitration today. lie re-
feircd 70 the forged interpretations IN the American
CASE as originally presented and argued that, when
the forgcries had been extracted from the case,
nothing remained Of the rights alleged to have been
derived from Russia.
John W. Foster. American Agent. explained that
the contents Of the documents unknown until
the American case had been prepared. As soon as
the forgery discovered the documents were with
drawn
Sir Charles Russell replied that, while the docn-
ments had been withdrawn. the formal depending
On the documents had not been materially changed
f. J. Phelps. Of American counsel. retortci that
the American had been restacd in the counter
case.
The discussion Of this point Of an acrd
character. the proceedings, since Sir Charles Russell
began. having been characterized by more heat and
temper than at any previous time since the opening
OF the Tribunal.
Sir Charles discussed the rights Of Russia In
Behring Sea under the treaties between Russia ana
The United States. and between Great Britain and
Russia. and conended that those treaties recognized
merely territorial rights Thcu he went into an
ANALYSIS Of The American statutes relating to Bchng
Sea. ard argued that they territorial In their
character and not applicable to foreigners.
Sir Charles Russell concndcd today that the
American statutes were not intended originally to
treat the Behring Sea as mare clausum but the
American courts interpreted them at the instance
of the American Government In proof OF this as
scr'lon be cited the copy OF brief for the United
States. in which the doctrine of clausum was
the only relied OH by their counsel.
Mr.. PhGps-Wc dispute the authenticity Of that
copy.
sir Charles RUSSELL am prepared forthwith to
submit proof OF It's authenticity. II the correctness
of the copy really questioned, why not the
original produced long sincel
Continuing his argument. Sir Charles said that the
court which condemned vessels seized In Bchrng Sea
rs II municipal court Interpreting American law not
as u prize court administering international law This
proved. beyond dispute that the seizures made
the ground that the whole Behring sea was a
portion of United States territory. and not the
ground OF those novel principles OF international law
enunciaed by United states counsel at the opening
of the arbitration. In conclusion, sir Charles de-
manded that the Tribunal pronounce Illegal the seizures
made 10y the United States In Bellring Sea-
Senator Morean-I the seizures can be justified
on other principles than those advanced at the hear
Ing Of q case Is not open to the United States TO
raise thems
Sir Charles Russell-No. The United States seized
ships certain grounds. The judge punished the
men In accordance herewith. great Nation can
not shift and change her position Moreover. the
reasons now advanced. II admitted. do not JUS
tIiy the fning and imprisOning Of sailors.
The inciden. yesterday which seemed to threaten
the success Of the arbitration based upon a
difference OF opinion between the American and
c1tisl representatives, as 10 the liability Of the
Vii" states for seizures ninde I'm Bclrins Sea, In
the event Of a decision against the United States
the question Of jurisdiction. The heat exhibited
by Lord Hannen, one Of the British arbtrators. is
considered an indication that Great Brs...' aniic
pates favorable decision the issue OF jurisdiction
and IS anX TO muct the United states as heavily
as possible in petunary way. II was Sir Charles
Russell who brought out, through allusion in his
argument. this purpose Of the British Government.
Sir Charles referred To the powers OF the Tribunal
OF Arbitration in regard 10 causing TO be ndemnfed
those who had been AT loss through the assertion
by Great Britain the United States of alleged rights
declared by the Tribunal to have foundation.
Lord Iannen. one of the British ArbitratOrs
psked whether, If the Tribunal should pro
nounce judgment the facts Of the seizures
and should settle the names and nationaes
and also the ownership Of the vessels seized, and
should at the same time decide separately the
general question to the effect that the United states
had not the right Of Jurisdiction claimed by ii. it
would not necessarily follow that the United States
must accord damages.
Mr.. Phelps answered that he would give guar
antces in behalf OF the Government Of the United
States. The treaty stated that the arbitators must
carefully settle the facts OF the seizures The further
questions Of liability and the amount Of damages
must be settled by negotiations between the two
Governments. The arbitrators had no right to fix
the liability personally. Mr.. Phelps added that he
did doubt that. II the question 10 the right Of
jurisdiction should be decided against the United
STATES the United states would accord damages.
Lord IIanncn, Narmly-1hcn the whole arbra
ton f. useless
senator Morgan. United States Arbraor-It would
be Impossible even for the President OF the United
States 10 give guarantees regarding the result OF
future negotiations, when such negotiations
completed they mnst he confirmed by twOthirds
vote Of the senate In their favor
This terminated the incident, which evidently left
a deep impression all concerned in the case, and
was followed to-day by more intcrchangcs Of rather
acrimonious character.