12 CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



This point will be considered under the following heads: 

 Chapter V. (E.) What rights passed to the United States under 



the Treaty of Cession of March 30, 1867. 

 Chapter VI. (F.) The action of tlie United States and Russia from 



Head F. j^gg^ ^^ ^^gg^ 



^HeaTo^^^' (^•) "^^^ various contentions advanced by the United 

 States since the year 1886. 



Point 5 of Article YI is as follows: 



Chapter VIII 5. Has the Uuited States auy right, and, if so, what right, of pro- 

 Article VI, Point tection or property in the fnr seals frequenting the islands of 

 ^' 11 the United States in Behring Sea when such seals are found 

 outside the ordinary 3-niile limit? 

 This will be briefly considered, but the proposition which 

 appears to be embodied in this question is of a character 

 so unprecedented that, in view of the absence of any pre- 

 cise definition, it is impossible to discuss it at length at the 

 present time. It will, however, be treated in the light of 

 such official statements as have heretofore been made on 

 the part of the United States, its discussion in detail being 

 necessarily reserved till such time as the United States 

 may i:>roduce the evidence or allegations upon which it 

 relies in advancing such a claim. 

 Article ^ II is as follows: — 



AUTICLK VII. 



If the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive 

 jurisdiction of the United States shall leave the subject in such posi- 

 tion that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the estab- 

 lishment of Regulations for the proper protection and preservation of 

 the fur-seal in, or habitually resorting to, the Behring Sea, the Arbi- 

 trators shall then determine what concurrent Regulations outside the 

 jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments are necessary, and 

 over what waters such Regulations should extend, and to aid them in 

 that determination, the Report of a .Joint Commission, to be appointc d 

 by the respective Governments, shall be laid before them, with such 

 other evidence as either Government may submit. 



The High Contracting Parties furthermore agree to co-operate in 

 securing the adhesion of other Powers to such Regulations. 



The terms of this Article make it necessary that the con- 

 sideration of any proposed Regulations should be i»ost- 

 poned until the decision of the Tribunal has been given on 

 the previous questions. 



' Beyond, therefore, demonstrating that the concurrence 

 of Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of any 

 Regulations which have for their object the limitation or 

 control of the rights of British subjects in regard to seal 

 fishing in non-territorial waters, it is not proposed to dis- 

 cuss the (luestion of the proposed Regulations, or the nature 

 of the evidence which will be submitted to the Tribunal. 

 Article VIII. With regard to the points raised under Article VIII 



lli (which refer to questions arising out of claims for 

 <lamages), it will be contended on behalf of (heat 

 Britain that the seizure of the ships was unlawful, and the 

 Arbitrators will be asked to find that in each case the seiz- 

 ure took place in non territcnial waters, that such seizures 

 were made with the authority and on behalf of the Govern- 

 ment of the United States, and that the amounts of dam- 

 ages which Great Britain is entitled to claim on behalf of 

 the owners, masters, and (;rews are the respective amounts 

 stated in tlie Schedule of ])arti('ulars api)eii(led to this Case. 



