Rock Island daily Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1886-1893, 1893-04-08
BEHRING SEA TALK.
First Tussle Ended and Left
with the Court.
DECISION EXPECTED ON TUESDAY


BE Admitted-Baron de Courcel Makes
Some Inquiries OF the Counsel-A Wide
Divergence of Position as to What is the
Pitb of the Case-British Editorial Com
ment on GIadstone's Latest Speech
Labor Riot at Hall.
PARIS, April S.-James c. Carter, coun-
Eel for the United States, continued before
the Behring court of arbitration yester-
day his reply to Sir Charles Russells plea
for the admission to evidence of the British
supplementary report of the Behring sea
commission. The contention of the coun-
sci for Great Britain, he said, had been
that the question of right in the 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 settlement of the property claim adj
vanced by them evidence on seal life in
the Behring sea was necessary. Such evil
dence was contained in the original re-
ports of the Behring sea commission and
therefore the reports formed an indispens-
bble part of tine case and counter case.
Ground OF the English Contention.
AS for the supplementary report, it had
not appeared in the matter already referred
from the evidence. Great Britain had
claimed the power under article seven of
the arbitration to include the supplement
tary report in the evidence. This article
declared that if it be decided that the Con-
currence of Great Britain be necessary to
establish regulations the report of the joint
commission shall be laid before the trib-
1nal, with such other evidence either
government may submit. This Great
Britain had construed right to intro
duce evidence as to the regulations, even
after the case and counter case had been
closed.
A Crucial Question at Issue.
Article nine provided that the reports
shall not be made public until after being
submitted to the arbitrator, or until it shall
be seen that the contingency of their be-
ing used by the arbitrator cannot arise. 1t
was thus made obvious that the question at
issue was a crucial one flor the arbitration.
If the contention of Great Britain was sus-
tanned, it must follow that the question of
right was to he decided first, and the question
of regulation. which the United States re-
garded as of prime Importance, must be re-
legated to second place. Carter then read
at length from Sir Julian Pauncefote's
correspondence in 1890, to prove that the
question of regulation was regarded as one
Of the first consideration.
DE CourceI Thinks it Important.
Baron de Courcel asked whether or not
Russia was a party to the negotiations at
that time
Carter-I do not know, but 1 consider
the point unimportant.
Sir Charles Russell-Communicat
with other powers were held in view. l be-
lieve 1t was intended at first to ask for
their active participation in the conven-
ton.
Baron de Courcel-I ask, because if Rus
a. u,
would attach to the negotiations. Other
wise the draft of the agreement :.ould be
merely an informal document continuing a
private diplomatic conversation. My ques-
ton may appear pedantic, but diplomatic
training leads me to attach Importance to
such matters. Communications with
third powers add weight to such drafts.
Carter Explains the Scheme.
Phelps-This may be an important ques-
ton later on; meantime, it is of secondary
Importance.
Baron de Courcel-Lord Hammer British
arbitrator directs my attention to a dis
patch from Sir Julian Pauncefote in which
he refers to communications from Russia.
Phelps-This is a matter of indifference.
Carter-The scheme was this: Experts
were appointed to draw up regulations for
seal fisheries; if they failed to agree, then
there was to be arbitration. Noquestion of
right or jurisdiction was raised.
In replying to Carter. Russell admitted
that Sir Julian Pauncefote's dispatches. as
far as mentioned, were confined to ques-
lions Of regulation. This, he said, was due
to the fact that the intention then was to
consult Russia and other powers concern
ing the regulation of the seal fisheries.
De CourceIl Asks for Proof.
If the correspondence was further con-
suited, however, it would be found that
separate negotiations had proceeded
simultaneously ON questions of right and
damages for seizure. Baron de Courcell
zsked Russell to produce proof of this
statement, and Sir Charles quoted from
several dispatches that passed between Sir
Julian Pauncefote and Lord Salisbury in
MAY 1890, concerning rights and damages.
Since then, he added, the question Of re-
Eulation had disappeared as separate
subject of consideration, and all questions
had been handled together in the sub.
sequent negotiations. The court adjourned
until Tuesday when 1t will hold a secret
session On Wednesday the proceedings
will again be open to the public.