94 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



of main tain in g those herds, whicli was asserted by the United States — 

 questions of ])roperty. Both of these were correctly described by Sir 

 Charles as questions of rigid. 



In the next place, there was the question what regulations might be 

 necessary for the purpose of protecting the seals from extermination ; 

 which question by the terms of the Treaty was not, in the order of 

 determination which the Arbitrators were to adopt, to be determined 

 until after they had made a determination of the questions relating to 

 exclusive jurisdiction; and not then, unless that determination was 

 such as would require the concurrence of Great Britain in regulations 

 for the pur]>ose of preserving the seals. There was that order pre- 

 scribed by the Treaty in resi)ect to the consideration of the questions 

 by the Arbitrators. 



Now, as to the first of these three questions — that relating to the 

 jurisdictional power or authority supposed to have been derived from 

 Bussia, there was not, it was to be presumed, any dispute whatever in 

 the evidence. It all rested upon documents supposed to b« accessible 

 by both parties. I will not say that it was not possible that dispute 

 might arise npon some question of fact, but at least it was not very 

 probable; and in the course of dii)lomat/c discussions respecting that 

 question, I do not think any serious dis7)ute had ever arisen in refer- 

 ence to any fact. The discussion was mainly in respect to the nature 

 and interpretation of documents known to the world, and in the posses- 

 sion of both parties. 



With respect, however, to the question of property in the seals the 

 case was quite different. There, dispute, conflict, and a great deal of 

 it, was to be apprehended. The question as to whether the United 

 States had a property in the seals or not depended of course upon the 

 nature and the habits of that animal, as all questions of property in 

 animals depend upon the nature and habits of the animals; and what 

 the nature and habits of those animals were, in many particulars^ it 

 was foreseen from the start might be the .'lubject of very serious dispute 

 upon which much conflict of testimony would be anticipated. Where 

 were we to go for information in reference to the nature and habits of 

 seals, and the modes by which they were pursued and captured and 

 applied to the purposes of mankind? There was a great variety of 

 sources of evidence. There were the persons in charge of the Priby- 

 loflf Islands, the agents of the United States engaged iu maintaining 

 that industry there, their statements founded upon personal knowledge, 

 their reports, and all of these might be resorted to In addition to 

 that, there were the Indians along the coast, who followed these seals 

 in their migrations, and who had made for a long series of years, to a 

 certain limited extent, the pursuit of those seals a part of their occu- 

 X^ation. Their knowledge could be appealed to. 



In the next ])lac!e, there was a large body of mariners connected with 

 the vessels engaged in pelagic sealing, masters of the vessels, officers 

 of the vessels, seamen, hunters, all of them more or less familiar with 

 the modes in which pelagic sealing was conducted. 



I need not say here that every one could see that the great body of 

 these witnesses belonged to a class whose statements would be very 

 likely to contlict with each other, sometimes because they are dishonest, 

 sometimes because theyare ignorant, sometimes because they are inex- 

 act ; but, from a hundred reasons, we know that they are apt to conflict 

 with each other. 



This whole subject, therefore, was encumbered with the possibility, 

 nay, the probability, that a great many of the allegations made by the 



