ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 33 



ring Sea Avas contemplated in it. I wish to remind the Tribunal, that 

 there is in this a confusion. In the diplomatic correspondence, begin- 

 ning in the time of Mr. Secretary Bayard and renewed again after a 

 long interval, there are two lines of negotiations running on side by 

 side almost. One of these is the consideration of the questions which 

 have arisen in difference between Great Britain and the United 



759 States, and which, as I shall hereafter in another connection 

 demonstrate, relate to Behring Sea and to Behring Sea only 



But in addition to that there was a suggestion put forward by Mr. 

 Bayard, and assented to by the British Government, as to an inquiry 

 which should not be confined to Great Britain and the United States, 

 but which should extend to other Powers interested. 



■The suggestion had its origin in the note, which, you will recollect, 

 sir, was addressed by Mr. Bayard to various Powers asking for their 

 CO operation. It was in view of that general inquiry, not restricted to 

 the United States and to Great Britain, that the idea of the commission 

 was originally started ; but side by side with that, distinct from that, 

 and, as Mr. Wharton says in one of the letters to which I shall here- 

 after refer, without prejudice to the questions in dispute between the 

 United States and Great Britain, this question of the larger commission 

 was being considered. 



Lord Salisbury then proceeds: 



The main object of your inquiry will be to ascertain "what international arrange- 

 ments, if any, are necessary between Great Britain and the United States and 

 Russia, or any other Power, for the purpose of preserving the fur-seal race in 

 Behring Sea from extermination." 



You will recollect, sir, that this idea of the Commission had origi- 

 nated long before the Treaty was signed. 

 He proceeds. 



Application has been made to the United States for permission for you to visit the 

 seal islands under their jurisdiction, and a similar request will be addressed to the 

 Russian Government. 



I pause here to ask, what was the object or the use of their having 

 permission to visit the Commander Islands and the Pribilof Islands, 

 unless it was to note what they saw, and, so far as it was relevant, to 

 record, note, criticise, comment on the conditions of seal life? 



Your attention should be particularly devoted to ascertaining (1) the actual facts 

 as regards the alleged serious diminution of seal life on the Pribilof Lslands, the 

 date at which the diminution began, the rate of its progress, and any previous 

 existence of a similar occurrence; (2) the causes of such diminution, whether and to 

 what extent it is attributable (a) to a migration of the seals to other rookeries, (b) 

 to the method of killing pursued on the islands themselves, (c) to the increase of 

 sealing on the high seas, and the manner in which it is pursued. 



Then they are enjoined to neglect no sources of information, and to 

 carry on their inquiry with impartiality. 



Then at a later stage — it is the only other extract with which I shall 

 trouble the Court, — at the top of page vii, after they have been abroad, 

 a further letter is directed to them on the 15th of January, 1892, only 

 one passage of which I intend to read. 



You will observe that Lord Salisbury says, and this is before the 

 report is drawn out — 



that it is intended that the Report of the Joint Commissioners shall embrace 



760 recommendations as to all measures that should be adopted for the preser- 

 vation of seal life. For this purpose it will be n.i^cessary to consider what 



regulations may seem advisable, whether within the jurisdictional limits of the 

 United States and Canada, or outside those limits. The Regulations which the 

 Commissioners may recommend for adoption within the respective jurisdictions of 



B s, PT xin 3 



