562 OKAL ARGUMENT OF SIR RICHARD WEBSTER, Q. C. M. P. 



against such a question being imported into the jurisdiction of this 

 Tribunal, or against it being suggested that when tlu' Avords: "The 

 questions wliich liave arisen respecting theriglits of proi)erty, respect- 

 ing the rigiits of jurisdiction, of the United States" — when those 

 questions were trained it was contein])hited that this Tribunal should 

 decide otherwise than as jurists addressed by lawyers, and applying 

 principles of law. You will remember that the Treaty provides that 

 the Arbitrators selected by the foreign nations shall be jurists of dis- 

 tinguished reputation, in their respective countries. 



Mr. Phelps. — We claim nothing different from that. 



Sir liicHAED Webster. — I am extremely obliged to my learned 

 friend, Mr. Phelps, and I thank him for his perfectly courteous obser- 

 vation. I was going to have pointed out that I did not understand my 

 learned friend Mr. Carter's argument in any way to deviate from that 

 position. 



Mr. Phelps. — No. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — I merely mention this because I stated in 

 reference to an observation made that 1 should deal with it, but there 

 is some little justiticatiou in the Tribunal thinking that such a thing 

 was going to be contended from the language of Mr. Coudert, which I 

 only notice in passing to show what 1 had in my mind. One of the 

 two passages to which I refer is at page 552 of the revised print, and 

 is in these words. 



Well in arguiug before this High Tribunal the word, "right" is most extensive. 

 If there were any Tribunal of lesser dignity that could determine this question we 

 would not have called upon you. The mere calling upon you enlarges the domain 

 of right. 



And on page 575 the same idea is repeated by Mr. Coudert in these 

 words. 



Because it is law that we want. Law in its best sense, in its highest sense, in its 

 most moral sense; the law that would be exY»ected not from a statutory Tribunal, 

 not the law that would be expected from one nation or the other, confined within 

 narrow liuiitations which sometimes strangle the right; but from a Tribunal formed 

 for the very purpose of expanding, enlarging and recognizing the beauty and 

 greatness of international law. 



Sir, I do not believe that there is any difference between Mr. Carter, 

 Mr. Phelps and myself upon this matter, but, on the other hand, I did 

 not feel it respectfid to the Tribunal to abstain from making the obser- 

 vation in answer to a suggestion falling from one of your body. May 

 I remind you, Mr. President, that the original and only cause of this 

 Arbitration was the interference with the pelagic sealers in catching 

 the seals, in shooting the seals in the non-territorial waters of Behring 

 Sea, and the seizure of the British ships and their condemnation by 

 the American Court, and I point once more to the language of this 

 Treatj^, both the opening words of article 1, and articles Vl and VII, 

 inaking the most marked distinction between Regulations which are 

 only to be considered in the event of the concurrence of Great Britain 

 being necessary, and rights which the United States possess independ- 

 ently of Great Britain at all. That distinction would have been wholly 

 unnecessary and wholly out of ydace if it was sui)posed that the only 

 function and jurisdiction of this Tribunal was to deal with joint rights, 

 or joint privileges and joint interests. Those joint rights, joint privi- 

 leges and joint interests have to be considered under article YII, and 

 have no place whatever under article VI. 



Sir, there is but one other independent branch of this case to which 

 I desire for a few moments to direct attention; and that is with refer- 

 ence to that W'hich is the real princii^le for which Great Britain is con.- 



