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



The President. — I think there is a distinct intimation in the letter 

 of Mr. Wharton, at page 315, that the preservation is to be extended 

 to the North Pacilic Ocean. 



Sir EiciiAiiD Webster. — Becanse, Mr. President, you will remem- 

 ber that there was proceeding at the same time the collateral line of 

 negotiation with regard to an arrangement to which all the interested 

 nations should become parties. You have to consider most carefully 

 whether the letters which are referred to relate to the discussion 

 between the United States and Great Britain solely, or relate to that 

 other negotiation which was going on all the time. 



Would you kindly look. Sir, to the letter you have been referring to, 

 page 316. 



Mr. Wharton to Sir Julian Pauncefote. 



Department of State, WasMngton, June 13, 1S91. 

 Sir: Tho President dii'ects me to say, in response to your note of this date, that 

 his assent to the proposition for a joint commission, as expressed in my note of Juno 

 9, was given in tlie expectation that hotli Governments would use every projier 

 effort to adjust the remaining points of difference in the general correspondence 

 relating to arbitration, and to agree upon the definite terms of a submission and of 

 the appointment of a joint commission without unnecessary delay. 



Therefore I submit that independently and collaterally to the agree- 

 ment which affected Great Britain, and affected the United States 

 alone, there was this parallel line of negotiation; and my reply to that 

 reference to the North Pacific, Sir, is that you will iind the North 

 Pacific referred to many times, and referred to by nobody more i)oint- 

 edly than by Lord Salisbury, at a time when he was desirous and at a 

 time when Mr. Blaine on behalf of the United States was not desirous 

 that the whole question should be dealt with in the way of arrange- 

 uient between the United States, Great Britain and other nations who 

 were to be interested in the matter. 



That is my answer to the i)oint to which you were good enough to 

 call my attention. I submit you will not forget, Sir, that the United 

 States Government did not attemj^t to go outside Behring Sea until 

 this year. It was only in this year, 1893, attendiug the sitting of this 

 Arbitration, while the Arbitrators were actually sitting, that a bill 

 was passed to enable the President to give effect, so far as United 

 States citizen's were concerned, to any award made by this Tribunal. 

 Therefore, the action of both countries, both Great Britain and the 

 United States, points to the fact that up to the time of the delivery of 

 these arguments, the suggestion of the Tribunal being seized of the 

 control of matters outside Behring Sea had not, at any rate, as we 

 submit, formed the subject of agreement or even of discussion between 

 the parties. 



I equally agree — I have said so more than once, if you merely take 

 the language of article 7 quite apart from the other articles of the 

 treaty, quite apart from the fact that you are dealing with questions 

 which have arisen concerning the preservation of the fur-seal in or 

 habitually resorting to the said sea, if you will look at the language of 

 article. 7 apart from that, the terms would seem to be wide enough to 

 give you power to go below. 



Senator Morgan. — The same terms are used in article I. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I quite agree, sir; and that, of course, 

 does not militate against my point, Avhether it be a good point or 

 whether it be a bad point. 



Senator Morgan. — I had su])posed when the treaty came to be for- 

 mulated and the text was finally determined, that the question was 



