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



important to mankind, from deterioration or destruction. And, if so, tliird, what 

 months or ])arts of montlis sliould bo included in such season, and over "what waters 

 it should extend. 



There will be found in that letter, Mr. President, other passages sup- 

 T)ortiug our views; but in tlie interest of that brevity to which, I have 

 alluded very often I am going to keep very closely indeed to this mat- 

 ter and refer only to the most important passages. So far, I submit, it 

 cannot be successfully disputed that the question distinctly pointed to 

 Behring Sea or a part of Behring Sea, and had no reference to regula- 

 tions outside Behring Sea. 



That form of question was objected to by Lord Salisbury on the 21st 

 of February, and in view of the suggestion that by the terms of the 

 treaty we are supposed, to have enlarged that question I will ask the 

 Tribunal to look at the language in which that question was objected 

 to. 1 refer to page 294 of the same volume, reading from the letter of 

 the 21st of February, 1891, just before the end of the letter. 



The sixth question, which deals with the issues that will arise in case the con- 

 troversy should be decided in favor of Great Britain, would perhaps more iitly 

 form the substance of a separate reference. Her Majesty's Government have no 

 objection to refer the general question of a close time to arbitration, or to ascer- 

 tain by that means how far the enactment of such a provision is necessary for the 

 preservation of the seal species; but any such reference ought not to contain words 

 appearing to attribute special and abnormal rights in the matter to the United 

 States. 



On the 14th of April, at page 295, you will find the sixth question 

 repeated by Mr. Blaine, with this comment in the beginning: 



While Lord Salisbury suggests a different mode of procedure from that embodied 

 in the sixth question, the President does not understand him actually to object to 

 the (question, and he therefore assumes that it is agreed to. 



Then, Mr. President, Mr. Blaine again repeats the sixth question in 

 the same terms as before, containing in it the words: 



in any part of the waters of Behring Sea, then it shall be further determined : First, 

 how far, if at all, outside the ordinary territorial limits it is necessary that the 

 United States should exercise an exclusive jurisdiction in order to protect the seal 

 for the time living upon the islands of the United States and feeding therefrom? 

 Second, whether a closed season (during which the killing of seals in the waters of 

 Behring Sea outside the ordinary territorial limits shall be prohibited) is necessary 

 to save the seal-fishing industry, so valuable and important to mankind, from dete- 

 rioration or destruction? And, if so, third, what months or parts of months should 

 bo included in such season, and over what waters it should extend? 



On the 3rd of June, 1891, page 305, Sir Julian Pauncefote proposes 

 the commission of exi^erts, which, as you are aware, subsequently took 

 the form of the two commissioners nominated by either party. 



In lien thereof they propose the appointment of a commission to consist of four 

 experts, of whom two shall be nominated by each Government, and a chairman who 

 shall be nominated by the Arbitrators. The Commission shall examine and report 

 on the question which follows : 



For the purpose of preserving the fur-seal race in Behring Sea from extermination, 

 what international arrangements, if any, are necessary between Great Britain and 

 the United States and Russia or any other power? 



On the 4th of June, page 307, Mr. Wharton, writing to Sir Julian 

 Pauncefote — when, as you will see Mr. President, there was no dispute 

 about the question at all — uses this language. I read from page 307, 

 the 5th line from the top : 



I am also directed to remind you that the contention between the United States 

 and Great Britain has been limited to that part of Behring Sea eastward of the line 

 of demarcation described in our convention with Russia, to which reference has 

 already been made, and that Russia has never asserted any rights in these waters 

 afi'ecting the subject-matter of this contention, and can not therefore be a necessary 



