New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-06
RETIRING SEA ARGUMENTS.
THE, 1FEAL CHARACTER OF THE EVIDENCE
DISCUSSED.
49,, ,yrrps WARMLY COMPLAINS OF ENGLAND's
c,oSs INJUSTICE AND SIR CHARLES RUS


c,oSs INJUSTICE AND SIR CHARLES RUS
r,,nErrNps HIS CoUNTRY's CONDUCT.
p.r;s April 5.-The Behrng Sea Court OF
.rh;tration resumed its session at II :45 a. m TO-
dov E. j. Phelps, counsel in behalf OF thc
Trnited States, continued his argument He con-
tended that the British supplementary report was
;nadmissble The admission of new evidence at
this stage Mr. Phelps said, was a gross injustice
"a the United States. because it deprived the
United States of any chance to Introduce rehut-
ting testimony Mr.. Phelps spoke at some length
on the technical meaning of the treaty OF arbitra-
tion and the conditions and methods oil pro-
cedure TO he followed under the treaty.
Sir Charles Russell, in replying to MIR. Phelps
in behalf of Great Britain, paid tribute to the
late James G. Blaine. whose ability. he said, was
recognized in both hemispheres.
After luncheon NIr. Phelps continued his argu-
ment for the rejection of the supplementary re-
port of the Behring Sea Commission. His address
was interrupted several times by an exchange OF
criticisms between the counsel for the two Powers
If had becn guiding the policy Of the United
Sfstes" said Mr. Phelps. when Great Bfl''lh
presented the cOuntcr-case al 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 Richard Webster intcrposed the remark that
Great Britain had announced in her coun'cr-c''c
the production at a future date OF the bchfihg
Sea Commissions report
Mr.. Phelps said that lie had not heen aware oi
this The whole report was untrustwofthy' lor' al
though preliminary investigations had beHn made
conformity by the British and the American COM
missioners the reports had been drawn separately.
afOya ~ ID,
answered nor commented upon by the United
States. The British report contained moreover
a large amount of hcarsay arguments, conectures
ord other motters quite unsuitable as evidence be
fore the Court.
Sir Charles Russell. in his reply, said that he
had not expected such discussion of the legal
character of the evidence as that introduced py
Mr. Phelps He felt quite unprcpard FOR inns
extraordinary heat on the part of the opposing
counsel He was extremely surprised that Great
Britain should be charged with injustice Ill h"r
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
Rehrinc Sea Commission as bearing upon the ques-
tion of right before the Court. The counsel Tor
the United States had attempted thronghout the
sittings of the tribunal 10 force this matter upon
the commssioners as IL only one quef%" nbnr oes
tions than those of right to he settled. he
tribunal was dealing with the AFFAIRS OF an open open
sea in which there were involved other rights !'h
those of Great Britain and the United states
namely. the rights of mankind. In the matter
of Great Britain's and Americas rights, the arni-
traitors must act strictly judges in the matter
of the rights of mankind, they must acqult them
selves as just men.
Sir Charles Russell then justified the productl n
of the report of the Behring Sea Commission,
arguing from the terms of the arbitration treaty
between the United States and Great Britain.
II. he said, the sole object of the report was 10
<1,c rih fn Onln
regulation of the seal fisheries and to increase
its knowledge of the practical matters at issue,
the report must be admitted to evidence under the
article governing the procedure Of the Court OF
Arbitration Sir Charles then read the article in
question, and the Court adjourned Upon reas-
sembling he will resume his argument.