St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1893-04-05
The Court Hears Arguments
From the Opposing Com
miSSionepS.
America Produces Reports to
Remove Causes of Brit
ish CaviliDg.
InSinuatiOnS Of London Pa
pers Unworthy Of At
tention.
An Australian Bank With
100000 Pounds Depos-
its Fails.

PARIS, April 1.-The court of arbitra-
ton. to pass upon the differences be-
tween Great Britain and America as to
the seal fisheries in Behring sea, began
its session at IL: 40 a. m. today in a large
apartment in tho office of the French
foreign ministry. Many American la
dies were among the audience. Sir
Charles Russell. the British attorney
general, of counsel for Great Britain,
opened the arguments by moving that
Mr. Campbell should furnish 10 the
court copy of the report of Sir Henry
Elliott on the Behring sea question.
Ex-Attorney General Webster spoke in
support of the motion. and Mr.. Phelps
and Mr.. j. S. Carter, of counsel for the
United States. delivered addresses in
reply. The court adjourned at l: 40
p. IN.
Mr.. Phelps said in his argument that
the United States communicated the
original report in February. Mr.. Carter
contended that the United States would
be justified in refusing to produce the
report asked for, but would produce it
Il order to remove the causes of
-AA British CavllIng.
Sir Charles Russell then demanded
the production of the Elliott report,
basing his application on article of
the treaty of arbitration. Mr.. Phelps,
i'll 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 which article 4 of the treaty did not
refer. Mr.. Phelps further de-
MED that it was admissible in
law that one party should have
the power to force an adversary
to produce any document, simply be-
cause the adversary desired to use it in
evidence. The refusal of the United
States to produce the document was not
due to any desire to suppress the report,
but to the fact that it was applied for
too late for the American government
to prepare its answers to the arguments
that might possibly be based upon it.
Nevertheless he would produce the re-
port, as he did not wish to engender the
suspicion Of desire to suppress evil
dence, but after this concession he
would decline to produce any further
evidence. Sir Charles Russell briefly
commended that the report was referred
to in the appendix, and the appendix
was referred to in the case sufficiently
to Invoke article of the treaty.
After the Recess
Mr.. Carter submitted for consideration,
a motion that the tribunal dismiss from
the arbitration so much of England's
demand as relates TO America and is
contained in chapter 10, page 3l5 of the
British counter case referring to the eX-
penditure for supreme court proceed
IngS. The motion contemplated also
the dismissal of the clause concerning
pelgaic sellers. Mr.. Phelps moved the
rejection of the report of theBehring sea
commission put IN evidence at the first
meeting of the arbltratOrS. His argu-
ment in support of this motion was
mostly technical and was based upon
vOluminOGS correspondence between
the United States and British govern
mentS. His address was still unfinished
when the commission adjourned Until
tomorrow.
EXSecretary of State John w. Foster,
American agent before the Behring sea
court of arbitration, was questioned to-
day in regard 10 the erroneous transla-
ton of certain Russian documents, rep
resented to have been used to uphold
the American case. Mir. Foster said
that the errors of the translation had
been discovered by the United States
government, and the enormously trans
lated documents had been withdrawn,
along with the arguments based upon
them, and the British government had
been informed of the fatcs. The insin-
uatiOus of the British newspapers were,
therefore, Mr.. Foster added, utterly un-
founded and unworthy OF attention.