ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 105 



sideration of any question of concurrent regulations, which considera- 

 tion woukl only become necessary in the event of the tive points being 

 decided unfavourably to tlu; claim of the United States. The sixth 

 Article requires that a distinct decision shall be given on each of these 

 points, while the seventh Article provides that 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 for the 

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

 resorting to, Behring Sea, the Arbitrators shall then deternnne what 

 concurrent regulations are necessary, and that 'to aid them in that 

 determination, 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.' It will be noted that the 

 seventh Article of the Treaty refers only to the lieport of a Joint Com- 

 mission, and it is by the ninth Article alone provided that the joint and 

 several Reports and recommendations of the Commissioners may be sub- 

 mitted to the Arbitrators, ' should the contingency therefor arise.' The 

 event therefore on the happening of which the Keport or Reports and 

 further evidence are to be submitted is thus indicated by the Treaty; — 

 that event being the determination of the five points submitted in the 

 sixth Article unfavourably to the claim of the United States, and so that 

 the subject would be left in such a position that the concurrence of Great 

 Britain would be necessary for the i^urpose of establishing proper 

 regulations." 



Xow there is his position. His position is, that the submission of 

 these reports, and the submission of any other evidence, bearing upon 

 the question of regulations is not to take place until the decision of the 

 Tribunal is made upon the first series of questions. So he declares 

 that the insertion of evidence by the United States bearing upon these 

 points was wholly improper. Well, what does it mean"? It means that 

 tlie time to submit evidence to the Tribunal upon the question of regu- 

 lations does not arrive until after a decision by the Arbitrators, and that 

 it arises then only in a certain contingency. What does that mean? 

 That means, does it not, that there are, possibly, two distinct decisions 

 to be made by the Tribunal. That is what it means. You must await 

 the decision of the Tribunal on the first five questions before you can 

 submit any evidence upon the question of regulations, and then if that 

 decision is in a certain way, then and then only, it is in order to submit 

 evidence upon the question of Regulations. That is the position taken. 

 In other words, it is distinctly and squarely taking the position that 

 there are to be two hearings, two submissions of evidence, two decisions, 

 all of which my learned friend now pronounces, and justly pronounces, — 

 I should not say it except I had his authority for it — to be nonsense, 

 Well, what does he say in conclusion? " The Government of Her Bri- 

 tannic Majesty therefore reserved, and in their opinion rightly reserved, 

 until the time contemplated by Articles VII and IX of the Treaty, 

 the consideration of the question of concurrent regulations, should 

 the contingency therefor arise, and Her Majesty's Government protest 

 against the introduction, at this stage, of facts touching seal life, which 

 they contend aflbrd no support to the exclusive rights claimed by the 

 United States, which were the original cause, and formed the first 

 object of this Arbitration. 



" With regard to the allegation that the United States will have no 

 means of contradicting, limiting, or qualifying the proof and evidence 

 adduced in the British Counter Case, the Government of the United 



