ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 561 



And upon that the United States invoke the Judgment, as they them- 

 selves say, of this High Tribunal. 



Now 1 tui-n to the Counter Case to see whether that position is in 

 any way abandoned and 1 will ask the Tribunal to be good enough to 

 look at pages 130 and 135 of the Counter Case. 



Reasons why seizures made. 



The United States charge that each and all of the vessels when so seized were 

 engaged in the hunting of fur seals in the waters of Behring Sea in violation of the 

 Statutes of the United States and that such seizures were made in accordance with 

 the laws of the United States, enacted for the protection of their property interest 

 in the fur-seals which frequent Behring Sea and breed only upon the Pribilotf Islands 

 which Islands are part of the territory of the United States. 



In page 135 just above the signature occur these words. 



The Government of United States, in closing its presentation of the matters in 

 controversy by his reply to the ])rinted Case of Great Britain re-asserts the positions 

 taken in its printed Case and all of the propositions and conclusions contained 

 therein, and is prepared to maintain the same by argument before the Tribunal of 

 Arbitration. 



And that which I read from page 301 and page 303 of the United 

 States Case are among those very conclusions to which attention is 

 there directed. One scarcely needs to refer to the words of the Treaty 

 for this purpose but when you remember the opening words of the 

 preamble so often referred to by the members of the Arbitration. 



The queations which have arisen between the Government of Her Britannic 

 Majesty and the Government of the United States in the waters of Behring's Sea and 

 concerning — 



and so on ; and, at the beginning of article I the same words occur, and 

 we are to be told to-day that no question arises as to justification, 

 legality, or validity of those acts. I do not understand what is the 

 meaning of the pages and pages of the written argument of my learned 

 friend Mr. Phelps justifying these very acts which he now says he is 

 not concerned to defend either in the past or in the future on the 

 ground that they are what he has called "defensive regulations". 



We shall understand more distinctly what Mr. Phelps' meaning is 

 when he argues, but I could not allow that observation to pass with- 

 out a resi)ecttul protest before this Tribunal having regard to the posi- 

 tion in which Great Britain is placed, and to the circumstances out of 

 which this Arbitration arose. 



I stated the other day that I should say a word or two upon a point 

 suggested by a member of this Tribunal, that this Tribunal was not 

 bound to act upon the principles of either municipal or international 

 law. 



The President. — Is that all that you have to say with reference to 

 what Mr. Phelps said yesterday'? 



Sir KiCHARD Webster. — It is. 



The President. — Then, Mr. Phelps, you will no doubt be kind 

 enough to note what has been said. 



Sir EiciiARD Webs'J'ER. — When Mr. Phelps comes to reply. Sir, I 

 have no doubt he will deal with it. 



Now as I said 1 stated two or three days ago I would not fail to 

 notice a point suggested by one member of the Tribunal that though 

 analogy from munitupal law might be of use, I only put my own para- 

 phrase of his meaning — although the analogy of existing, recognized, 

 international law miglit be of use, this Tribunal was in a sort of posi- 

 tion to award the right of property or the right of protection inde- 

 pendently of there being by international law, any such right recognized, 

 existing or known. All I cuu suy is this, again respectiully to i)rotest 

 B S, PT XIII— — 3G 



