ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 93 



ofliability of Eussia was referred to a Committee; aiul it was not (this 

 appears iu these. documents), until after that Committee had reported 

 that the decision was come to. 



I must not be tempted to make any further incursion on my time or 

 upon the time of the Tribunal by referring to the observation of Mr. 

 Phelps. I pass at once to the point to which I invite a few minutes 

 attention, and that is as to what is the area over which the Regulations 

 are to be made. 



Now I begin by saying that if it is desirable to consider the whole 

 question of seal preservation, most imquestionably the area outside 

 Behring Sea as well as the area f«.s/rfe Behring Sea, ought to be con- 

 sidered; and not by one single word of mine do I mean to. — 



Senator Morgan. — Do you mean that is within the powers of the 

 Tribunal. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — ISTo, I say it is not witliin the powers of 

 this Tribunal — I say it is a general question of dealing with seal life 

 as a whole which ought to be dealt with by anybody who is discussing 

 the whole question. 



Senator Morgan. — How can we deal with it unless it is within the 

 Xjowers of the Tribunal? 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — It is contended by us Senator that it is 

 not within the powers of the Tri])unal. It has been argued by my 

 friend that it is not. He asked me to present to the Tribunal any addi- 

 tional observations that occurred to me on that question of area and I 

 was about to present to you some observations and submit them to 

 your judgment, to show that the ambit of Article VII is the same as 

 the ambit of Article VI — in other words that the ambit of Article VII 

 relates to regulations to be made in some part of Behring Sea east- 

 ward of the line of demarcation detined by the Treaty of 18G7. 



Nobody will at any rate accuse me, I am sure, of desiring in any way 

 to oveilook or minimise or belittle the difficulties which are in my way. 

 I quite agree if you simply look at the language of Article VII by 

 itself without reference to the rest of the Treaty, without reference to 

 the other arguments words used at the same time, or without reference 

 to the real questions which had arisen between the parties, then you 

 might say the words are sufficiently large. But as a question of con- 

 struction I am submitting to the Tribunal that the ambit of Article VII 

 Avas intended to be the same as that which had been the subject of 

 discussion and dispute between the parties, and which is covered by 

 Article VI. 



I must, 1 am afraid, refer to a very few documents. I will ask the 

 Tribunal to be good enough to follow me with them that I may be as 

 brief as I possibly can. I will ask them to take the United States 

 Appendix, volume I; and I will refer only to documents in that book, 

 Avitli one very brief exception. At page 28G the letter under date 

 of the 17th of December, 181)0, from Mr. Blaine they will lind the first 

 form of Article VII. It was then the 6th question and it is well that 

 I should read to the Tribunal what the first form of Article VII was : 



If the determination of the foregoing questions shall leave the subject in such 

 position that tlie concurrence of Great Britain is necessary in prescribing regula- 

 tions lor the killing of the fur-seal in any part of the waters of Behring Sea, then it 

 shall be further determined: First, hoAV far, if at all, outside the ordinary territo- 

 rial limits it is necessary that the United States should exercise an exclusive juris- 

 diction in order to protect the seal for the time liA^ing upon the islands of the United 

 States and feeding therefrom. Second, whether a closed season (during which the 

 killing of seals iu the waters of Behring Sea outside the ordinary territorial limit 

 shall be prohibited) is necessary to save tjie seal-iishin^ industry, so valuable and 



