The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-04-05
BEHRING SEA CASE OPENED
Preliminary Sparring of Counsel Before
the Paris Court of Arbitration.
Charges of British Newspapers Concerning
MistranslatiOns Unwarranted-B Big Union
ist Demonstration al Belfast.


Argument Begun Before the Court OF Avbi-
acknowledgements Charges Unfuunded.
PARIS, April 4-The court of arbitration
TO pass Upon the differences between Great
Britain and America as to the seal fisheries
IN Behring sea commenced its session, at
11:40 this morning. In q large apartment in
the office of the French Foreign Minister.
Many American ladies were among the
audience. Sir Charles Russell. counsel for
Great Britain. opened the argument by
moving that MI. Campb~ll should furnish
to the court q copy of the report OF Sir
Henry Elliott on the Behring sea question.
Ex-Attorney-general Webster spoke In
support of the motion and NE. Phelps and
Mr.. j. 5. Carter, of counsel for the United
States. delivered addresses in reply
Nh. Carter commended that the United
States would be justified In refusing to pro-
duce the report asked for. but would pro.
duce 1t In order to remove the causes OF
British Caviling.
Sir Charles Russell then demanded the
production of the Elliott report. besing his
application on Article 4 OF the treaty OF
ur arbitration.
Mr.. Phelps. in behalf of the United States.
denied that the report was referred TO In
the American case. He said that it was
simply referred to in the counter case. to
WulCu AItlCi6 \ u L tu0 tIOdtJ olQ ~ AcAoAs
MIR. Phelps further denied that it was ad-
missible III law that one party should have
the power to force an adversary to produce
q document simply because the adversary
desired TO use IL In evidence. Inc REFUSAL
of the United States TO produce the docu-
meDt was not due TO any desire to suppress
the report. but TO the fact that 1t was ap-
Piled for too late for the American govern.
ment TO prepare Ito answers to the argu-
monts that might possibly be based upon
- No,orI.,a IA. ,rnv1l prnhpoa fha m
port. as he did NOS wish to engender the
suspicion of q desire to suppress evidence.
but after tins concession he would decline
to produce any further evidence.
Sir Charles Russell briefly COMMENDED
that the report was referred to in the ap-
pendix, and the appendix was referred to
In the case sufficiently Co invoke Article
4 OF the treaty.
After a recess Mr.. Carter submitted for
consideration q motion that the tribunal
dismiss from the arbitration so much of
England's demand as relates to America.
and Is contained IN Chapter AlA. page SO.
of the British counter-caee. referring to the
expenditure for the Supreme Court pro-
ceedings. The motion contemplated was
the DISMISSAL OF the lause concerning
pelagic eealers.
Mr.. Phelps moved the rejection of the
report of the Behrlng Sea Commission put
in evidence at the first meeting of the arbi-
traitors. His argument In support OF this
motion was mostly technical and was based
upon q voluminous correspondence
the United States and the British govern
ments. His address was still unfinished
when the commission adjourned until to.
morrow.
Ex-Secretary of State John w. Foster,
American agent before the Behring sea
court OF al arbitration. was questioned Today
in regard to the erroneous translation OF
certsln Russian documents represented to
have been used to UPHOLD the American
naaa NJ Ecafnr aoyd that fha arrpr nf fha
translation had been discovered by the
United States government and the errone-
ousiy translated documents had been with
drawn. along with the argumento based
upon them, and the British governments
bad been informed of the facts. The insiD-
nations of the British newspapers were.
therefore,. Mr.. Foster added, utterly IN
founded and un worthy of attention.