ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 263 



seized by Eussians, tliey sliall be fortliwith liauded over at Yokoliaina 

 or at auy port in the British possessions for trial by tlie British author- 

 ities, and I say, with deference to my learned friend Mr. Phelps experi- 

 ence, and anybody who is acquainted with these matters of international 

 comity and agreement, that I am aware of no case where a civilized 

 nation has allowed her ships to be seized and handed over to other 

 Tribunals except in cases in which the country has practically agreed 

 to the establishment of Courts, which Courts are to have jurisdiction 

 over their own subjects. A case very familiar to you, no doubt, Mr. 

 President, is that of Tunis, where Great Britain, has recognized the 

 Existence of the French Courts in Tunis and has consented to abolish 

 her own consular courts there. But 1 am aware of no case where it 

 has been insisted that the United States cruisers may seize British 

 ships and condemn them in United States Courts. 



The President. — I would ask, Sir Eichard, if it is your opinion that 

 these matters should be within the sphere of the Eegulations that we 

 have been called upon to make? 



Sir Eichard Weesier. — I should have thought not, Sir, I should 

 have thought you were intended to determine, and I speak with great 

 deference, what Eegulations were necessary for the preservation of seal 

 life and not intended to tell either nation, that is either the United 

 States or Great Britain, how the Eegulations so determined upon were 

 to be enforced for their respective nationals. Might I put another case ? 

 Suppose you should be of opinion a fine of $500 would be i)roper fine 

 for a breach. I do not think that that would be the kind of thing to 

 be imposed by these Eegulations. 



I think the United States would be entitled to say that we think 

 $500 is too much or too little. That is a matter that the Tribunal might 

 have left us to carry out. My reading of these words is Eegulations 

 necessary for the preservation of seal life — not Eegulations to enforce 

 the Eegulations wiiich are necessary — and it would reem to me that 

 the purview of your jurisdiction would be governed by the words, 

 " what is necessary for the purpose of the protection of seal life", and 

 not " what is necessary for the purpose of enforcing those Eegulations" 

 which you have yourself described. I do not know if I make my mean- 

 ing clear? 



The President. — Perfectly. Then in your view we should not be 

 competent to frame Eegulations which would practically amount to the 

 same as a convention between both Governments concerning these 

 questions. 



Sir Eichard Werster. — If you mean by that the clause relating 

 to procedure, I think certainly not. I cannot think a better case than 

 the United States demand. They demand that no citizen or subject of 

 the United States or Great Britain shall kill and so on. Then tliat the 

 foregoing Eegulations should apply to and extend over all those parts 

 east of the 180th meridian down to the 35th parallel, and so on; and 

 any boat or craft other than those mentioned and described which may 

 be found engaged in sealing, and so on, may be seized and captured 

 by auy armed vessel and condemned in any Court of competent juris- 

 diction. I on behalf of Great Britain do not ask that such a degradation 

 should be inflicted on United States citizens. 



The President, — That is another question. I understand this sanc- 

 tion of penalty seems to be too strong and contrary to the dignity of 

 your Government, but another mode of sanction may be thought of, 

 the sanction between Eussia and Great Britain for instance — in the 

 same sense as it is in the j»oye^ of the United States you might accept 

 of it being brought into Eegulations. 



