Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-04-08
THE BERING SEA DISCUSSION.
MI. Carter Continues His Argument Against
Admitting the British Report

Admitting. the British Report.
James c. Carter, counsel for the United
States, continued before the Boring sea court
OF arbitration at Paris yesterday his reply to
Sir Charles Russelis plea for the admission to
evidence Of the British supplementary report
OF the Boring sea commission. The contention
Of the counsel for Great Britain, he said, had
been tina. the question of right in the Boring
sea must be settled before the matter Of regu.
lations. 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 advanced by them evidence
on seal life in the Beriny sea was necessary.
Such evidence was contained in the original re-
ports OF the Boring sea commission and there
fore these reports formed an indispensable
part OF the case and counter case
AS for the supplementary report, it had not
appeared IN the matter already referred to, and
it ought, therefore, 20 be excluded from the evil
dence. Great Britain had claimed the power
under article OF the arbitration to include
the supplementary report in the evidence.
This article declared that il it be decided that
the concurrence of Great Britain be necessary
to establish regulations, the report Of the Joint
commission shall be laid before the tribunal,
with such other evidence as either government
may submit
This Great Britain had construed rs a right
to introduce evidence as to the regulations,
even after the case ana counter case had been
closed. Article 8 further provided that the
reports shall not be made public until after
being submitted to the arbitrators or until il
shall be seen that the contingency OF their
being used by the arbitrators cannot arise. 1t
was thus made obvious that the question at
issue was 4 crucial one for the arbitration. II
the contention OF Great Britain was sustained
it must follow that the question of right
was to be decided first and the question of
regulation, which the United States regarded
as of prime importance, must be relegated to
second place.
Mr.. Carter then read at length from Sir
Julian Pauncefote's correspondence in 1890 to
prove that the question Of regulation was re-
garded as one of the first consideration.
Baron de Courcel asked whether or not Russia
was party to the negotiations at that time.
Mr.. Carter-I do not know, but consider
the point unimportant.
Sir Charles Communications with
other powers were held in view. I believe. II
was intended at first to ask for their active par
ticipation in the convention.
Baron de Courcell-I ask because If Russis
was communicated with more weight would
attach to the negotiations. Otherwise. the
draft OF the agreement would be merely an
| informal document continuing private diplo-
matte conversation. My question may appear
pedantic, but diplomatic training leads me to
| attach Importance to such matters. Communi.
cations with third powers add weight to such
drafts.
Mr.. Phelps-This may be an important
question later on; meantime it is of secondary
| importance.
Baron de Courcell-Lord Hammer, British
arbitrator. directs my attention to q dispatch
| from Sir Julian Pauncefote. in which he refers
to communication with Russia
MIR. Phelps-This is a matter Of indifference
Mr.. Carter-The scheme this Experts
were appointed to draw up regula tons for the
seal fisheries; if they failed to agree then there
was to be arbitration. No question OF right OF
jurisdiction was raised.
In replying to Mr.. Carter Sir Charles Russell
| admitted that Sir Julian Pauncefotes dis
patches, SO far as mentioned, were confined to
| questions OF regulation. This, he said, wal
due to the fact that the intention then was t.
! consult Russia and other powers concerning
( the regulations OF the seal fisheries.
IL the correspondence we're further consulted
however. it would be found that separate nego
! tiations had proceeded simultaneously on ques
| tons OF right and damages for seizure
| Baron de COurceli asked Sir Charles Russell
| to procure proof Of this statement, and 81,
| Charles quoted from several dispatches tina
passed between Sir Julian Pauncefote and LORI
Salisbury in May, 1890. concerning rights ant
| damages. Since then. he added, the question
of regulation had disappeared - . separat
subject OF consideration and all questions has
been handled together in the subsequent nsgo
/ tiations.
The court adjourned until Tuesday, whom 1
viii hold secret session. On Wednesday tn
pseeeeoangs WI again b open - The publia.