case of the United States, many of which are likewise printed in full in the British case without any material variation, and the originals of some of which should exist in the British archives. The documents called for in your second note are likewise textually set forth in the case of the United States. They consist not only of copies of official papers certified to by the chief officer of the respective departments of the government, but of extracts from official printed publications and from books accessible to the general public. It is suggested that such a sweeping request would hardly be approved by the tribunal.

"The treaty does not appear to provide for either the production or examination of original papers by the agent of the other party upon his own request, nor for permission to photograph any papers. Although no reason is given in justification of the unusual request of the British agent, the United States is desirous of avoiding all unnecessary delay and of affording every proper opportunity for verifying anything relied upon by it in its case. I take pleasure, therefore, in assuring you that the British agent, or a representative duly authorized by him, will be given full opportunity to examine and verify the originals in the exclusive possession of this government of anything contained in the case of the United States, provided that no delay is thereby caused either in the delivery of the counter case or of the printed argument, or in the commencement of the oral argument.

"I beg to add that it is the intention of the agent of the United States to take to London the originals or certified copies of all documents and papers contained in the case and counter case of the United States, and to be prepared to produce them at the request of the British agent approved by the tribunal."

Sir M. H. Herbert replied:

"I have now received a telegram from the Marquis of Lansdowne stating that His Majesty's government are not aware that any precedent exists for coupling the production of original documents with any condition such as that laid down by the United States government.

"The condition, moreover, in the opinion of His Majesty's government amounts to a refusal, as, without an extension of time, it is practically impossible to examine large numbers of documents and to embody the result.

"Both in private litigation and in international arbitrations the right to inspect has never been questioned, and His Majesty's government cannot, by accepting conditions, cast doubt on the existence of this right and thus establish a precedent which might prove a serious bar to a resort to arbi

tration.

"The originals in Russian, of which only translations are given, form a great proportion of the documents which it is desired to inspect. His Majesty's government consider that they have obviously a right to compare the originals with these translations.

"The description which has been given of other documents has not been sufficient for the purpose of tracing copies in England.

His Majesty's government consider that in cases where certified extracts are given, they have clearly the right to see the whole documents so as to satisfy themselves that nothing material is contained in the omitted portions.

"His Majesty's government hope that on further consideration the United States government will agree unconditionally to their request, so that it may be possible to avoid the necessity of calling a special meeting of the tribunal to consider the matter.

"An application for the extension of time is expressly contemplated in the convention, and, unless this application is acceded to, it will be impossible to present fully the reply to the United States case. His Majesty's government cannot believe that the United States government will be prevented through any question of personal convenience from favorably considering the request, the refusal of which would entail the presentation of the British counter case in an incomplete form, as unsatisfactory to His Majesty's government as to the tribunal.

"His Majesty's government would accordingly be glad to learn that the United States government agree to the application of the British agent, whose request for an extension of time they strongly support."

This fully discloses that the purpose of Great Britain was to force an extension of time.

Mr. Hay, in a lengthy note of June 16, 1903, took the ground that no such special difficulties as the treaty contem

plated as a condition precedent to the extension of time had. arisen. He characterized the request in regard to documents as "a complete impeachment of the American case" and concluded as follows:

"I trust you will assure the Marquis of Lansdowne of the earnest desire of the President to bring this vexed question to a termination in such a way that it will leave no unkind feeling between the two nations, and that he is desirous of meeting his Lordship's wishes as far as possible. He has, therefore, directed me to state that the British agent, or his representative, will be permitted at his convenience to examine all the documents adduced in the case of the United States to which reference is made in your notes of May 29th and June 8th, without any restriction or condition as to the use he shall make of the results of his examination, reserving for the agent of the United States the right to enter such motion or objection before the tribunal when it assembles as he may think proper.

I have already advised you of the intention of the agent of the United States to have in London the originals or certified copies of all documents and papers contained in the case and counter case of the United States. He has already prepared copies in the original of the Russian documents in the case. Should the British agent not see proper to take advantage of the permission herein given to examine these and other documents in Washington, and should desire it, the Russian documents will be forwarded to him at London.

"In closing, I have the honor to inform you that, in faithful compliance with the treaty, the counter case of the United States, which is already printed, will be delivered in the numbers heretofore indicated, on July 3d, at your embassy in this city, unless you should indicate that delivery at Newport will be more convenient to you."

Mr. Choate took the affair up actively at London with the Attorney General, who stated that while the British counter case would be delivered by July 3d, it would necessarily be incomplete and would be accompanied with a statement that it might have to be supplemented in some form.

In the reply to the note of Mr. Hay of June 16th it was claimed, for the first time, that the British government was

entitled to the necessary time for inquiry at the head of Lynn Canal as to the credibility of certain Indian witnesses who had made affidavits in support of the case of the United States, and the weight which should be attached to their statements, and also for the examination on the spot of certain statements made in the United States case as to acts of occupation and exercise of jurisdiction in the disputed territory by the United States government. The note concluded with a statement that the British government felt bound to press for the extension of time for which they had applied, and that upon a failure to agree it would be necessary to summon the tribunal, in order that the point might be discussed and that this would. probably cause the postponement of the discussion of the real question.

The position was taken by the British government, in a note of July 1st, that translations of certain Russian documents had been adduced in support of the case of the United States which did not comply with the convention which provided "that documentary evidence should accompany the case,' and that for this variance His Majesty's government would have been justified in refusing to accept the case delivered on behalf of the United States. The claim was made that inasmuch as the documents themselves were not made accessible until after the delivery of the counter case, the British government was entitled to two months from that time to reply to them. The note concluded as follows:

"Should His Majesty's government be disappointed in this expectation they would be fully justified in refusing to proceed further in the matter, and in any case they reserve their right to protest to the tribunal against the reception of evidence to which the opportunity of reply had been denied them, and to claim permission to put in such evidence in rebuttal of the statements in the United States case as they have been prevented from submitting with their counter case. "His Majesty's government cannot bind themselves to any time for the opening of the oral argument. If the extension they now require is not granted, and the tribunal meets in

September, His Majesty's government reserve the right to show cause before the tribunal for the postponement of the oral argument on the ground that time has not been granted to complete and examine the evidence which should be dealt with in their counter case."

Exception was taken to the assertions of this note on the ground that they involved "the honor and good faith of the United States."

Although the outlook had become exceedingly ominous, the counter cases were delivered on July 3d. The British counter case was preceded by a protest and a reservation of the "right to apply to the tribunal when it shall assemble for permission to put in such supplementary statement and evidence as the justice of the case may call for."

Early in July the British government sent representatives to Washington to examine and photograph documents relied upon in the case of the United States. Much time and labor were devoted to this work, but no material discrepancy was found to exist and no exceptions were relied on.

On July 29th Mr. Sifton proposed to General Foster that the preliminary meeting of the tribunal should be on October 15th "to organize, settle questions of procedure, fix the time when oral argument will be proceeded with, and also deal with any other question that may be presented by either party for consideration." General Foster reminded him that more than three months previously it had been definitely agreed that the preliminary meeting should be on September 3d and declined to consider any postponement.

In view of the repeated demands for extension, the protest, the reservation of the right to ask the tribunal to postpone the hearing, the intimations in regard to exceptions to the regularity of the production of evidence in behalf of the United States, the statement of Mr. Raikes in his note of July 1st that His Majesty's government might, in view of the refusal of extension of time by the United States, be fully justified in refusing to proceed further in the matter, there was