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



Sir lliCHARD Webster. — My answer is tliat it is based on the 14tli 

 article. 



The High contracting Parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings of 

 the Tribunal of Arbitration as a full, perfect, and final settlement of all the ques- 

 tions referred to Arbitration. 



In my submission no question is referred to tlie Arbitrators as to the 

 way in which Eegulations should be enforced. 



The President. — It is referred to us by the contention of the other 

 side. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — By the formal paper handed in, yes. Not 

 by the contention of the other side as appetning from any of their docu- 

 ments up to that time, neither in the Case, Counter Case, Argument or 

 Diplomatic Correspondence. I am aware that General Foster, repre- 

 senting the United States, has made that demand, but that is the first 

 time tliat such a demand has appeared. 



Mr. Gram. — But, Sir Kichard, is it not your contention that we should 

 include in your Regulations this sentence that the " License should be 

 subject to forfeiture for breach of the above Regulations?" 



Sir Richard Webster. — I suggested that that would be a reason- 

 able recommendation; it is what I may call a Regulation necessary for 

 the protection of seal life. 



Lord Hannen. — It is a penalty. 



Sir Richard Webster, — You must draw the line somewhere. I 

 take the view that mere machinery for the enforcement of Regulations 

 was not intended to be referred. 



Lord Hannen. — I think to be consistent, you must strike out that. 



Sir Richard Webster. — It occurred to me that it might be said to 

 be going too far, but it seemed also to be very near the line. I looked 

 at it in tliis view, though I hope you will not think I want to justify 

 myself, that I thought the Tribunal might think a Captain or an owner 

 who has broken the license is not a tit person to be licensed a second 

 time. That was the idea. It does not seem to be quite enforcing the 

 same thing as procedure, or penalty, or condemnation of a vessel, but 

 I really did not think very much of the question of consistency in put- 

 ting it down, but really what w^as a proper Regulation. 



The President. — In Article III of the Treaty for the Modus Vivendi, 

 it is provided : 



Every vessel or person offending against this prohibition in the said waters ol 

 Behring Sea outside of the ordinary territorial limits of the United States, may be 

 seized and detained by the naval or other duly commissioned officers of either of 

 the High Contracting Parties, but they shall be handed over as soon as practicable 

 to the authorities of the Nation ; 



and so on. 



That is about the same plan as suggested. This is embodied in the 

 Treaty regulating the Modus Vivendi. You construe it that this Treaty 

 is, to a certain extent, the form of the Regulations? 



Sir Richard Webster. — Well, Sir, I "cannot go back from what I 

 have said. I do not consider it so, if you ask me; but I must point 

 out, if that had been the form of the demand, there would have been 

 no question about it. Assuming terms to be arranged. Great Britain 

 and the United States would agree that that is reasonable. My j)oint 

 is, that to impose upon the nationals of another Country such a Regula- 

 tion is going far beyond any mere question of agreement, and is laying 

 down a penalty which is to be the consequence of a breach. I admit 

 it also was open to the observation that we have gone too far in Article 

 VIII. I accept the criticism, though I do not know that it injures very 

 much the argument I have been contending for, that I have gone too 



