PART IV. 

 DAMAGES AND COMPENSATION. 



1. British Claim for Damages. 



There remain for consideration tlie questions of fact Artioie vm, 

 which are involved in the cliunis made by the owners of /i.',,7iuu.°' ^''^^' 

 British vessels for injuries sustained by the seizure of their 

 vessels, ami by such vessels beinjj ])revented by the action 

 of the United States cruizers fi<un (-nyaging in pelajiic 

 sealing ill Behring Sea. The British Goveinntent agree 

 with the Government of the United States that, as far as 

 damages are concerned, no question of amount is to be dis- 

 cussed before the Tribunal of Arbitration, ami that only 

 questions of fact involved in the claim are proper for con- 

 sideration. It is admitted in the Counter-Case on behalf uritfri states 

 of the United States that the seizures and acts of iuterfer- CountferCase, p. 

 ence comjilained of took place outside the ordinary terri- 

 torial waters of the United States, that is to say, outside 

 the 3-mile limit; and, further, that the acts of seizure and ibij., p. 130. 

 interference were authorized and executed under and by 

 the authority of the United States Government, for the pur- 

 pose of enforcing certain laws passed by the United States. 



Under these circumstances, assuming, as is necessary for 

 the purpose of the question now under discussion, that the 

 claim on behalf of the Government of the United States 

 to interfere with the ships of other nations fishing in the 

 non-territorial waters of Behring iSea is unfounded, the 

 responsible Governn>eut of the United States have by 

 force prevented the vessels in question, and their owners, 

 masters, and crew, from engaging in a lawful occupation 



and industry. 

 72 The contention put forward at p. 133 of the United 



States Counter-Case is, that all the items of claim 

 there referred to, that is, "Loss of estimated Catch," 

 "Probable Catch," "Balance of probable Catch," "Bea- 

 sonable Earnings for the months of October, November, 

 and December," and "Loss of Profits," are in the nature 

 of prospective profits or speculative damages, and are so 

 uncertain as to form no legal or equitable basis for finding 

 facts upon which damages can be predicated. 



This view of the law has been rejected by the English 5C.p.d.280. 

 Courts. In Phillips v. the London and South-Western 

 Eailway Company, where an eminent nuHlical practitioner 

 who had been injured by the negligence of a Bailway Com- 



63 



