The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-04-09
THE BEHRING SEA CASE.

Carter Continues His kepIy to Russel's
ArGument-An Arbitrator's Question.
PARIS, April S.-James G. Carter. counsel
for the United States. continued. before the
Behring sea court of arbitration yesterday,
his reply to Sir Charles RusselPs plea for
the admission to evidence of the British
supplementary report of the Behring Sea
Commission. The contention of the counsel
of Great Britain, he said, had been that
the question of right in the Berlng sea
must be settled before the matter of regula-
tIons. 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 ad-
vanced by them evidence on seal life in
the Behring sea was necessary. Snch
evidence was contained in the
original reports of the Behring sea
commissioners and, therefore, these
reports formed an indispensable
part of the case and counter case. As for
the SUI plementary report it had not ap-
peared in the matter already referred to,
and 1t ought. therefore. he excluded from
the evidence. Great Britain had claimed
the power. under Article Z OF the treaty of
arbitratiOn. TO include the supplementary
ItDOIL III tuG CIV tuCbNC. Il no uCCldItu
that if it be decided that the con-
errrence of Great Britain be neces-
sary TO establish regulations. the re-
port of the joint commission shall
then be- laid before the tribunal with such
other evidence as either government may
submit. This Great Britain had construed
as a right to introduce evidence as to the
regulations. even after the case and counter
case had been closed. Article 3 further
provided that the reports shall not be made
-,lt,. rnriI altar l,atny auhn,iffad ntha
arbitraiOrs, or until 1t shall br seen that
the contingency OF their being used ny the
arbitrators cannot arise. 1t was thus
made obvious that the question at Issue
was a ~cruicIal one for the arbitration.
Ii the contention of Great Britain W as sus-
tanned il must follow that the question of
right was TO be decided first. and the ques-
ton of regulation. which the United States
regarded of prime Importance. must be reie-
gated To second place. Mr.. Garter then
read at length from Sir Jullan Pauncefote's
correspondence in 1890 To prove that the
question of regulation was then regarded
as one of the first consequence.
Baron De Courcel asked whether or not
Russia was d party to the negotiations at
that time.
MIR. Carter-I do not know, but l consider
the point uniTnportant.
Sir Charles Russell-CommunicatiOns
with other pUwers we're held In view. | be-
Iieve. 1t was intended ut first TO ask for
their active participation In the conven-
ton.
Baron De Courcel-I ask. because If Rus
sia WAS communicated with much more
weight would attach I'D the negotiations.
Otherwise the draft of the agreement
would be- merely an informal document
continuing n private diplomatic conversa-
ton. My question may appear pedantlc,
but diplomatic training leads me 10 attach
i'm Importance TO such matters. Communica-
tions with third powers add weight to such
drafts.
Mr.. Phelps-This mav be an important
question later on; meantime. IT is OF Sec
ondary Importance.
Baron de Conrcel-Lord Hammer. British
arbitrator. directs my attention TO q dis.
patch from Sir Julian Pauncefote. in which
he refers To a communication with Russia.
Mr.. Phelps-This is q matter of indif-
ference.
Mr.. Carter-The scheme was this: Ex-
perts were appointed to draw up regula.
tions for oeai fisheries; If ;hey failed to
agree tbel there WAS TO be arbitration. No
question OF right or Jurisdiction was raised.
In replying to Mir. Carter. Sir Charles
Russell admitted that SIR Julien Paunce-
totes dispatches. as far as mentioned,
were confined to questions OF Tegula-