ARGUxMENTS ON PREL,IMINARY MOTIONS. 67 



You will, of course, undeistaiid wlieu I say that as far as the Sup])le- 

 uieutary Eeport, the admissibility of which is now alone in question, 

 that is conversant, and oflered only as conversant with the question of 

 Regulations and Eegulations only, and I have pointed out in April 1892, 

 recollecting the season in which observation can be made is June, July, 

 August and September, and regarding the remoteness of the region in 

 ({uestion, and the infrerjuency of means of communication, that the 

 parties obviously intended that the information to be derived from that 

 further opportunity for examination should be in some way available. 



I have a further observation to make that I would respectfully urge 

 as having a most material bearing on Article VII. You are aware that 

 the Conventiou of 1892 was the second Convention in the nature of a 

 modus Vivendi. You are aware that under the first Convention, as 

 under the second, restrictions were submitted to by the United States 

 as to the extent of its slaughter of seals upon the Islands themselves, 

 and that the citizens or subjects of Great Britain submitted to restric- 

 tive regulations of a severe kind upon the question of pelagic sealing. 

 Is it to be said with any show of reason that if the result of that experi- 

 ment, if the result of the action of these two Conventions in the nature 

 of temporary arrangements did throw any useful light upon the ques- 

 tion of what Kegulations should be ordained by this Tribunal, that this 

 Tribunal is to be shut out upon that question of Eegulations from the 

 consideration of that which would have a clear and a direct bearing 

 upon what ought to be the exercise of their discretion in the matter of 

 Regulations itself? I repeat it might be, I do not affirm that it was, 

 but that there might have been such evidence of the etfect of the opera- 

 tions of either the modus vivendl of 1891 or of 1892 as might have thrown 

 the most valuable light on the character of the Regulations which this 

 Tribunal should ordain; and I say again, and it is the last observation 

 that I shall make on that topic, that I do not the least recede from the 

 position which I submit is an invulnerable one, that on the question of 

 Regulations this Tribunal has no right to shut out from its considera- 

 tion, upon its merits, any evidence ottered by either Government up to 

 the very moment that this Tribunal retires to consider the questions of 

 Regulations. 



]S[ow I have one more duty to discharge before I sit down, and that 

 is to show that the positions which I have taken up in this argument 

 are the positions which the Government of the Queen took up in its 

 original Case; that it is the position which it maintained when the dis- 

 cussion arose in the interval between the original Case and the Counter 

 Case; and I do that not merely to prove the consistency of our positions, 

 but to show to this Tribunal that the United States Representatives 

 had from the first to the last notice of the plan which we were jn good 

 faith and with deliberation pursuing. I refer first in that conuec^tion 

 to the Case originally presented. You will recollect that that case was 

 presented on the 3rd of September, 1892, and at page 10 of that Case, 

 the 5th Question of property ami protection, is referred to, and those 

 who prepared the Case proceed thus: 



"This will be brieiiy considered, but the proposition which appears 

 to be embodied in this question is of a character so unprecedented 

 that in view of the absence of any precise delinition it is impossible 

 to discuss it at length at the present time. It will, however, be treated 

 in the light of sucL official statements as have heretofore been made 

 on the part of the United States, its discussion in detail being neces- 

 sarily reserved till such time as the United States may produce the 

 evidence or allegations upon which it relies in advancing such a claim". 



