ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 265 



far in tlie Eegulation that I propose. I do not know if there is any- 

 thing else? 



The President. — No. 



I only wish to observe that we are not to be limited by any qnestion 

 concerning the mode of the execution of the liegnlations we may award ; 

 because that is not our business, but of the interior constitution of each 

 country. Whether the country requires the interference of Parliament 

 or of Congress, or does not require it, that is an alfair which concerns 

 each party; but we are here before Nations, and not before the Govern- 

 ments. Tlie Government represents the Nation; and it is the business 

 of the Nations between themselves to see how they divide their consti- 

 tutional powers; we have not to enter into that. 



Sir EicHARD Webster. — No, and I would rather withdraw the 8th 

 Eegulation than lay myself open to any charge of inconsistency. It 

 seems such a very minor ])oint. 



Sir John Thompson. — The inconsistency could easily be removed by 

 inserting in section 2 that such licenses shall only be granted to sailing 

 vessels and to persons who have observed these Kegulations. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Yes; but, in all probability, the language 

 of Article 8 is open to objection. 



Senator Morgan. — I was about to say. Sir Richard, that I understand 

 the position the United States has taken is that this Tribunal has no 

 Ijower to ordain Regulations to operate within Behring Sea, and the 

 position of Great Britain is that we have no power to ordain Regulations 

 to operate outside Behring Sea? 



Sir Richard Webster. — I have not heard that contention of the 

 United States, Sir. It may come in reply, but I have not heard it 

 hitherto. 



Mr. Carter. — That is not our view of our contention, Sir. 



Senator Morgan. — Then, the only question as to that branch of the 

 subject is, whether this Tribunal has jurisdiction to ordain Regulations 

 to operate outside of Behring Sea and in Behring Sea, as a concession? 

 I merely want to know the attitude of the parties. 



Sir Richard Webster. — Well, I do not think that my learned friend 

 Mr. Carter would put it as a matter of concession. (3ur view has been 

 that the United States did claim to prohibit as of right British subjects 

 from sealing in Behring Sea, and that the right of the Tribunal to make 

 Regulations inside Behring Sea, which was the alternative of the five 

 Questions, was obviously not any matter of concession by us. It is 

 admitted, on the face of the Treaty, the only question is whether or not 

 Article VII includes a question of Regulations outside Behring Sea on 

 that point. 



Mr. Carter, — Our view is there is no diifereuce between Behring 

 Sea and outside Behring Sea on that. 



Sir Richard Webster. — So I said. 



Mr. Tupper. — With your permission, Mr. President, I would inter- 

 pose for a moment. The Tribunal will recollect that a statement was 

 prepared, to aid the Tribunal, of the Facts which the British Govern- 

 ment desired to be found; a Counter-Statement was submitted by 

 General Foster, for the United States, as to the facts which the Ujiited 

 States desired should be found, and with the aid of counsel on both 

 sides. General Foster and I have been able to agree upon this statement 

 which of course removes the other two statements from the considera- 

 tion of the Tribunal. 



The Findings of Fact upon which we are agreed are as follows. 



1. That the severul searches and seizures, whether of sliips or goods, and tlie sev- 

 eral arrests of masters and crews, respectively meutioued in the Schedule to the 



