ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 69 



happily agreed, shall be submitted to the determination of a 



66 tribuTial of arbitration, and the treaty only awaits the action 

 of the American Senate. . . . If the contention of this Ciov- 



ernment is sustained by the Arbitrators, then any killing of seals by 



the Canadian sealers during this season in these waters is an injury j o* ♦ 



to this Government in its jurisdiction and property. . . . '^'1'® Case Ippeudix^ 



United States canno^t be expected to suspend the defence, by suchyyl'. j'^ p. 359. ' 



means as are within its power, of the property and jurisdictional 



rights claimed by it, pending the arbitration. 



And ou tlie 22u(i March, 1892, lie again writes: 



For it must not be forgotten, that if Her Majesty's Government pro- Ibi(l.,p. 3Cl. 

 ceeds during this sealing season upon the basis of its contention as to 

 the rights of the Canadian seah^rs, no choice is left to this Govern- 

 ment but to proceed u])on the basis of its confident contention, that 

 pehifjic sealing in the Behring Sea is an infraction of its jurisdiction and 

 property rights. 



There is no known method whereby the seals resorting to 

 Bebriug Sea may be distinguished, at any rate before cap- 

 ture. Upon no construction of the Treaty could it be pre- 

 tended tbat the Tribunal of Arbitration is empowered to 

 regulate the pursuit of seals generally. To prohibit the 

 pursuit of certain specified fur-seals outside of Behring Sea, 

 or to make Regulations concerning them, Avould be imprac- 

 ticable, and it is submitted would be beyond the authority 

 given to this Tribunal. 



Passing from the question of the area of waters over 

 which the proposed Regulations should extend, and assum- 

 ing the Regulations to apply to the whole, or some part of, 

 the non-territorial waters of Behring Sea, the contention of 

 tbe United States, so far as it can be gathered from their 

 Case, is that pelagic sealing must be entirely prohibited. 



It is submitted that any decision of tlie Tribunal prohib- 

 iting pelagic sealing would be contrary to the terms of the 

 Treaty. 



Article VII contemplated the establishment of Regula- 

 tions as applicable to the pursuit of seals outside territo- 

 rial waters; and the prohibition of pelagic sealing is not 

 authorized. 



To contend that pelagic sealing should be entirely pro- 

 hibited would be, under cover of so-called Regulations, to 

 defeat the manifest intention of the parties. 



The following argument is, therefore, based upon the 



view that the Regulations should be such as should be fair, 



both to the United States as owners of the Pribylotf 



67 Islands, and to Great Britain as representing those 

 who desire to engage in the lawful indnstry of i)e- 



lagic sealing, but who at the same time are willing to be 

 bound by such Regulations as are necessary for i)roper 

 protection and preservation of the fur-seal in, or habitually 

 resorting to, Behring Sea. 



Furthermore, it is essential that the Regulations should 

 be such as would be likely to secure the adhesion of other 

 Powers, and would not operate as an inducement to them 

 to withhold their consent with the knowledge that by so 

 doing they would secure to themselves greater advantages 

 from the industry in question. 



