68 ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



be contended on behalf of the United States that the 

 Keguhitions should amount to a ])iactical prohibitiou of 

 pelagic sealing in all waters to which seals from the Friby- 

 lofif Islands resort, and should eflectually prohibit and 

 ^Countor-Case, pj.gygj,j^ |^jjg capturc, anywhere upon the high seas, of any 

 seals from tlie Pribyloff Islands. 



It is submitted that any such contention is entirely 

 beyond any claim ever advanced by the United States at 

 any stage of the controversy prior to the delivery of their 

 Case, and is contrary to the agreement of the parties which 

 was embodied in the Treaty. That Treaty deals, and deals 

 only, with "questions which have arisen" between the two 

 Governments, In no part of the discussion was it sug- 

 gested that the rights of the United States to limit the 



killing of seals extended beyoud Behring Sea. Ou 

 65 the contrary, when the British Government desired 



the assent of Russia to the modus vivendi proposed 

 TT •* J ow iu the month of June 1891, it was pointed out by Mr. 



United states . ,,joi.tt t-T ,■ l liiji 



Case, Appendix, Whartou, lu a despatcii to Sir Julian Faunceiote, dated the 

 vol. i, p. -MG. ^^]^ Qf ^^Q^^ month, that the contention between the United 

 States and Great Britain was limited to that part of Beh- 

 ring Sea eastward of the line of demarcation described in 

 the Conveution with Russia of the 30th March, 1807; that 

 Russia had never asserted any rights in the waters affect- 

 ing the subject matter of the contention, and could not, 

 therefore, be a necessary party to the negotiations if they 

 were not expanded; and further, that the authority of the 

 President was derived from the Statute of the United 

 States, and that no authority was conferred upon him to 

 prohibit or make penal the taking of seals in the waters of 

 Behring Sea westward of the line referred to. 



It is scarcely necessary to point out that such Janguage 

 not only depends for its force upon an assumed jurisdiction 

 over an area of sea, but is wholly inconsistent with the con- 

 tention that pelagic sealing in the i)arts of the Pacific 

 Ocean outside Behring Sea, or in those parts of Behring 

 Sea west of the line of demarcation, was the subject of 

 controversy between the parties. 

 Ibid., p. 315. Further, on the 11th June, 1891, Mr. Wharton, in his 

 letter to Sir J. Pauncefote, stated that the Government of 

 the United States, recognizing the tact that full and ade- 

 quate measures for tlie protection of seal life slionld 

 embrace the whole of Behring Sea and i)ortions of the iSTorth 

 Pacific Ocean, would have no hesitancy in agreeing, in con- 

 nection with Her Majesty's Gov^ernment, to the ai)point- 

 ment of a Joint Commission to ascertain what permanent 

 measures were necessary for the preservation of the seal 

 species in the waters referred to, such an agreement to be 

 signed simultaneously with the Convention for arbitration, 

 and to be without prejudice to the (luestions to be submitted to 

 the Arbitrators. 



Later, viz., on the 8th March, 1892, Mr. Wharton wrote 

 to Sir J. Pauncefote: 



Ibid., p. 356. The United States claims an exclusive right to take seals in a por- 

 tion of the Beliring Sea, while Her Majesty's Governnieut claims a 

 common right to pursue and take the seals in those waters outside a 

 3-mile limit. This serious and i)rotracted controversy, it has now been 



