Waterbury evening Democrat., 1893-04-06
BEHRING SEA CASE.
Continuation of Arguments Before the
 Arbitration Court

OA arguments 4beIOEO Gh0
 Arbitration Court.
 PARIS, April 6.--The Court of Arbitra- tion regarding Behring Sea resumed its session at 11:45 a. m. The Hon. E. J. Phelps, counsel in behalf of the United States, continued his argument
 He contended that the British supplement tary report was inadmisslble. The admis- sion of new evidence at this stage, MT. Phelps said, was a gross injustice to the United States, because it deprived the United States of any chance to adduce re- putting testimony
 MT. Phelps discourSed at some length on the technical meaning of the Treaty of Ar. biIration, and the conditions and methods of procedure to be followed under the treaty. i kzrz4Sa
 Sir Chatles Russell, in replying to Mir Phelps in behalf of Great Britain, paid tribute to the late James G. Blaine, whose ability, he said, was recognized in both hemispheres.
 At l o'clock an adjournment was had for luncheon, after which Mr Phelps con tinued. He was interrupted several times by an exchange of criticisms between the counsel for the two powers.
 If had been guiding the policy of the United States" said MT. Phelps, ''when Great Britain presented the counter case at the last minute, I would then and there have refused to proceed with the arbitra- Uion. Great Brtain's conduct was not only unjust but deeply humiliating for the fitted States"
 Sir Richard Webster interposed the re- mark that Great Britain had announced in her counter case the production at future date of the Behring Sea Commissions re- port.
 MT. Phelps, in continuing, said that he had not been aware of this. The whole report, he said, was untrustworthy, for although the preliminary investigations had been made conjointly by the British and American commissioners, the reports had been idraWA separately and, the British report had been neither answefed nor con- mented upon by the United States. The British report contained; moreover, large amount of heresay arguments, conjectures and other matter quite unsuitable as evi- dence before the court. a
 Sir Charles Russell in his reply said that he had not expected such discussion of the legal character of the evidence as that introduced by MT. Phelps. He felt quite unprepared for this extraordinary heat on the part of the opposing counsel. He was extremely surprised that Great Britain should be charged with injustice in her conduct pf the proceeding preliminary to the meeting of the court. There was no intention on the part of Great Britain to use the report of the Behsing Sea Commis- sion as hearing upon the question of right before the court. The, counsel for the United States had attempted throughout the sittings of the tribunal to force this matter upon the commissioners as if only one question were before them.
 There were, however, other questions tLan those of right to be settled The tl lbnnaf was dealing with the affairs of an open sea in, which were involved other rights than those of the United States and Great Britain, namely the rights of man kind. In the matter of Great Britains and America's rights the arbitrators must act strictly as judges, in the matter of the rights Gf mankind. they must acquit them selves as just men.
 Sir Charles then justified the pro duction of the report of the Behring Sea Commission, arguing from the terms of the arbitration treaty between the United States and Great Britain. If, he said, the sole object of the report was to assist the tribunal to gain information as to the regulation of the seal fisheries and to in crease its knowledge of the practical mat tcrs at issue the report then must be ad- mitted to evidence under the article governing the procedure of the arbitra- tion.
 He then read the article in question and the court adjourded tor the day