ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 37 



of Great Britain, or vice versa. It is a serious thing to interfere with 

 the unrestricted freedom of the nationals of any power upon the hiij,h 

 sea. The tribunal will therefore be very slow, unless they are clearly 

 convinced of the necessity of doing it, of putting such restrictions and 

 if they think such restrictions should be put, they will naturally be 

 anxious to make these restrictions as light and as little harassing to 

 the nationals of other powers and to the commerce, I may say, of the 

 world, as they possibly can. And therefore, either way, it is not a 

 matter which can be said to be exclusively in the interest of Great 

 Britain or exclusively in the interest of the United States. The rules 

 may be found to be too stringent, and therefore require relaxation. 

 They may be found to be too lax, and therefore require further strin- 

 gency. But the point I was first upon is whether it is open to you to 

 make temporary rules. If the Tribunal was clear about it, of course I 

 should not proceed to argue it; but I do not know what views my 

 learned friends take upon thei>oint; and therefore I must submit very 

 briefly the views which we entertain. You are to make regulations 

 for the proper protection and preservation of the fur seal in or habitu- 

 ally resorting to the Behring Sea and you are to say over what waters 

 such regulations shall extend; and ttnally, the only other part of the 

 treaty which bears upon the matter is the provision which is to be 

 found in Article XIV, that 



The High Contracting parties engage to consider the resnlt of the proceedings of 

 theTribnnal of Arbitration as a full, perfect and tinal settlement of all the questions 

 referred to the Arbitrators. 



Lord Hannen. — Will you allow me to ask you a question? Ton 

 have said that there is general ignorance at the present time on this 

 subject. How could we fix upon any number of years which would be 

 sufficient? It is not for the preservation of the seals for say ten years 

 but generally for that preservation. Would it not be better that we 

 should make regulations under which information would be collected, 

 and which might form the basis of negotiations hereafter between the 

 two countries for the modification of any rules we may lay down? 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I have a note of, and intend to make. Lord 

 Hannen, that suggestion in connection with the question of regulations. 

 I have a note to that purpose. I quite agree that that would be a most 

 important thing; but I was for the mouient, if you will allow me, 

 dwelling upon the question whether there was power to make tempo- 

 rary regulations. I will say a word about the expediency of making 

 them in a moment. I was meeting the argument which might be based 

 upon Article XIV, although I do not know that my learned friends 

 would feel themselves interested one way or the other upon this ques- 

 tion. I would only say — it is a short and a small point — that although 

 article XIV contemplateR that the result of the arbitration is to be a 

 full and final settlement of the questions, it does not at all follow that 

 temi)orary regulations would not completely answer that purpose. 

 Regulations even to five, ten, or what ever period of years should be 

 adjudged to be proper, would not be the less a final ending of the 

 present dispute, because that final ending is arrived at by the adoption 

 of a set of rules temporary in their organization, and not permanent in 

 their character. 



That is really all I have to say about it. As regards the explanation 

 of it I quite agree with what Lord Hannen says; but it occurs to me, 

 with great deference, to submit to the gentlemen of this Tribunal that 

 that very ignorance that prevails, upon which I propose to say only a 

 word or two, points in the direction which can hardly be doubted, of 



