ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



advanced, for, carried to their logical conclusions, some of 

 the arguments of the United States would equally justify 

 them in treating that vast expanse of water as a mare 

 clausum to all the world: so that the navigation of those 

 waters by the nations of the world would be dependent 

 solely on the moderate exercise by the United States of 

 rights which they claim to possess, but upon which they do 

 not insist. 



Under the second head the United States claim that, by 

 the authority of this Internatioiuil Tribunal, concurrent 

 rules shall be established for the proper protection and 

 preservation of fur-seals in or habitually resorting to Beh- 

 ring Sea. 



It will be seen how essentially these two divisions of claim 

 differ one from the other. 



Under the first division the United States invoke the high 

 authority of this Tribunal to aflirm in them the existence 

 of dominion and jurisdiction which conflict with long-estab- 

 lished principles touching the rights of nations and the 



freedom of the seas. 

 4 The Government of the Queen deny the existence 



of any such dominion and jurisdiction, and to their 

 assertion have offered and continue to offer strenuous 

 opposition. 



But, on the other hand, when the rights asserted are dis- 

 tinctly abandoned or are negatived, and when it is admitted 

 that the concurrence of Great Britain is required to any 

 Kegulations, the Government of the Queen will willingly 

 join with the United States in seeking the aid of this impar- 

 tial Tribunal in the consideration of Eules which shall 

 recognize that the protection and preservation of fur-seals 

 is not a matter affecting the interests of the United States 

 alone, and which shall be just and expedient in view of all 

 the circumstances of the case, and having regard to all 

 interests which are concerned. 



How, then, is the case put as one of right? 



Seldom, if ever, has such a claim been based upon such 

 varying contentions. 



Seldom have the arguments supporting a claim of right 

 been shifted so lightly from one standpoint to another. 



Now it is asserted as a claim of old descent from Eussia; 

 then, when it is .shown that Russia neither had nor claimed 

 to have a right at all commensurate, it becomes a claim by 

 the United States in their own right of dominion. 



At one time it is a claim to a vast area of Behring Sea as 

 territorial waters ; but, when the limits of territorial waters 

 assented to by all nations are insisted on, it becomes reduced 

 to a claim of jurisdiction on the high sea — a claim based 

 upon a false analogy. 



Fur-seals are undeniably animals /ercB naturcOj yet a claim 

 to property therein, with all its attendant rights, is asserted, 

 and they are gravely relegated to the same category as a 

 herd of cattle on the plains. Then, when the impossil)ility 

 of establishing property in free-swimming anijnals in the 

 ocean is demojistrated, the i^retension resolves itself into a 

 general and undefined claim to protect the seals in the 

 Pacific. 



