8 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



Finally, a vague appeal is made to the principles of the 

 common and the civil law, to the practice of nations, the 

 laws of natural history, and the common interests of man- 

 kind; but one looks in vain for any vindication of the 

 unprecedented pretensions put forward upon any such prin- 

 ciples. 



Yet the issues are clear : 



5 Was the Government of the United States legally 

 justified in seizing British vessels engaged in pelagic 



sealing in Behring Sea outside territorial waters'? 



Did the sailors on board those vessels, who owed no 

 allegiance but to their Queen, violate any right of the 

 United States or of its citizens in such pelagic sealing? 



The historical and jurisdictional aspects of the matter 

 have been discussed at length in the British Case and 

 Counter-Case. In the United States Counter-Cas6 it is 

 stated that the questions involved in them are of secondary 

 and very limited importance. 



But the historical and jurisdictional considerations have 

 a bearing upon the case, the importance of which cannot be 

 thus tightly dismissed. 



The United States, in extending their laws over the east- 

 ern part of Behring Sea, have made a distinct claim to 

 include that part of the Pacific within their territorial 

 dominions, and also to protect the seals in Behring Sea, as 

 if the prelagic industry were carried on within their domin- 

 ions. Judges in the Courts of the United States have 

 declared this to be the true meaning of the Statutes they 

 were called upon to interpret and to enforce against the 

 British vessels. 



The United States cannot substantiate their claim in 

 virtue simply of their possession of the Territory of Alaska. 

 They must rest it on the Treaty of Cession. The effect of 

 that cession depends upon two points: 



1. What did it jirofess to cede? 



2. What had Eussia the title to cede, for Eussia could 

 not assign what she did not possess? 



In this connection the Treaties of 1824, 1825, and 1867 

 are important, since their text and history show that Eus- 

 sia never made claim to such rights as are now alleged; 

 that she made a claim of a different nature, and made that 

 claim only immediately to abandon it; and, lastly, that 

 Eussia did not even pretend to cede the rights now asserted. 



Yet the Sections of the Ee vised Statutes relating to 

 Alaska under which the British vessels have been con- 

 demned, as interpreted by the Courts of the United States, 

 are based on dominion and on the doctrine of ware clausiim. 

 And by this interf)retation, not the prohibition against 

 sealing alone, but all " the laws of the United States 



6 relating to customs, commerce, and navigation," have 

 been extended over the whole of the eastern part of 



Behring Sea. If this interpretation were sound and war- 



Tnitcd states ranted by the Treaty of Cession, the answer is complete; 



vo^'if pr''92'' ei the law of nations does not recognize such an extension of 



m- ' municipal law against foreigners; and the law, in so far as 



it applies to foreigners, is ultra vires. But if this iuterpre- 



