76 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



Now, what is the first of them? "The followiug is the text of Arti- 

 cles for insertion in the Behring Sea Arbitration Agreement as settled 

 in tlie di])l()niatic correspondence between the Government of the 

 United States and the Government of Great Britain". Then follow 

 Questions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, as they appear in Article VI of the actual 

 Treaty which constitutes this Tribunal. Then we come to the 6th 

 clause of this Memorandum signed by Mr. Blaine, and Sir Julian 

 Pauncefote; and here it is. — "If the determination of the foregoing 

 questions as to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States shall 

 leave the subject in such position that the concurrence of Great Britain 

 is necessary to the establishment of Regulations". — I omit the words 

 which for this point are immaterial and. which immediately follow, and 

 it goes on. — "The Arbitrators shall then determine" — need I dwell 

 upon those svords? — shall in that event determine; shall thereupon 

 determine, — "what concurrent regulations outside the jurisdictional 

 limits of the respective Governments are necessary and over what 

 waters such regulations should extend; and, to aid them in that deter- 

 mination, the Keport of a Joint Commission, to be appointed by the 

 respective Governments, shall be laid before them, with such other 

 evidence as either Government may submit." The rest of this is imma- 

 terial to the point which I am now discussing. Eecollect my learned 

 friend's contention is that this ambiguity, would not have arisen, if it 

 had not been that two distinct agreements were subsequently conjoined 

 and made into one, and, as my learned friend implied, perhaps not 

 incorrectly, clumsily put together. But I have demonstrated from one 

 of these documents alone, and without reference to the other at all, 

 that the contingency wiiich was in that one document contemplated, 

 was the event of the question of riglit (I use that expression for brevity) 

 being decided in one fashion; and then, in that event and in that event 

 alone, the determination, of the question of regulations came to the 

 front. 



I of course may be taking a sanguine and a partisan view of this 

 case, but I do not desire to do so, and I confess my difficulty in under- 

 standing what answer can be made to that contention. 



Now let us see what the next document is. You will observe that 

 the document which I have read and especially clause 6 of that docu- 

 ment which I have read, corresponds with Article VII of the actual 

 Treaty. Where do we find Article IX or the germs if I may so call 

 them of Article IX in the Treaty. 



We find that in the next document; the following is the text of the 

 Behring Sea Joint Commission agreement as settled in the diplomatic 

 eorresi)ondence between the Government of the United States and the 

 Government of Great Britain; — "Each Government shall appoint two 

 Commissioners to investigate, conjointly with the Commissioners of the 

 other Government, all the facts having relation to seal life in Behring 

 Sea and the measures necessary for its proper protection and preseva- 

 tion. The four Commissioners shall so far as they might be able to 

 agree, make a joint report to each of the two Governments and they 

 shall also report either jointly or severally to each Government on any 

 points upon which they may be able to agree. "These reports" — that 

 is to say, whether "joint" or "jo'iit and several" "shall not be made 

 public until they shall be submitted to the Arbitrators, or it shall 

 appear tliat the contingency of their being used by the Arbitrators will 

 not arise." 



Taking the two together is there any doubt what they mean. It 

 will be observed that Article IX is not textually in strict accordance 



