PART III. 



REGULATIONS. 



It is now desired to foriiinlate, on behalf of Great Brit- 

 ain, the outline of the argnnient which will be presented 

 in connection with the question of liegnlations. As stated 

 at p. 9 of the orij^iiial Case, Great Britain has throughout 

 been favourable to the adoption of general measures for the 

 control of the fur-seal fishery, provided that such measures 

 be equitable, and framed with due regard to the common 

 interest. It is, however, essential that any Eegulations 

 should o])erate to preserve the fur-seal industry for the 

 enjoyment, not of the United States alone, but of all those 

 who may lawfully engage in sealing. In this connection, 

 the attention of the Arbitrators is resi^ectfully directed to 

 the general considerations summarized at i). 159 of the 

 British Counter-Case. 



Though in the United States Case (Conclusions) it is united states 

 maintained that Eegulations must lu'actically be such as ^*^®' p- '^^'^• 



to prevent pelagic sealing everywhere, it is also 

 CI stated that the United States are in the position 

 of trustees of the sealing interest, thus involving the 

 idea of other rights besides those of the United States. 



The United States further, in tlieir conclusions to their 

 Case, include in the second "Material question" to be 

 determined by Arbitrators : 



Whether the United States and Great Britain onglit not in jnstice Ibid., p. 209. 

 to each other, in sound policy for the common interest of ninukiud, 

 &c., '"to enter into such re;isi)n!i1)le arransjjcment by concurrent re.i;u- 

 lations or convention, in which tlie parti(;ij)ation of other Governments 

 may he properly in ited," &c. 



In the Counter-Case of the United States, however, a 

 more advanced position is taken. We read: 



The United States insist, as claimed in their Case, that they have. United States 

 upon the facts established by the evidence, such a pro])erty and inter- Con nter-Cuse, 

 est in the seal herd frequenting the Lslauds of the United Stales in P- ^"^* 

 Bering Sea, and in the industry there maintained arising out of it, as 

 entitles them to protection and to be protected by the Award of this 

 Tribunal ajjainut all pelacjic staling, uhich is the subject of eontroversj/ in 

 this Case, and (pute irrespective of any right of property or of self- 

 defence in respect of their territorial interests, they claim to have 

 clearly shown that no regulations short of prohibition will be sufficient 

 to prevent the early destruction of the Alaskan seal herd. 



Before considering the scope of the Eegulations, the united states 

 question as to the area of waters over whicii they should ^'"''"'Pp-^"^"^"^- 

 extend requires notice. It ai)pears from certain ))assages 

 in the United States Case and Counter-Case, that it will 



57 



