ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. Ill 



Kow, that, may it please the Arbitrators, is an account — I think a 

 just account — of the manner in Avhich these Oases have been made up 

 and of the respective theories of the parties in making them up. The 

 theory of interpretation upon which the representatives of Great 

 Britain have thus far proceeded, is tliis: That the original Cases are 

 to contain notliino- upon the subject of Eegulations until the Tribunal 

 has determined that it is necessary to enter into the consideration of 

 that subject by a detei'mination of the questions of exclusive jurisdic- 

 tion in such a manner that the concurrence of Great Britain is neces- 

 sary to regulations to i)reserve the fur seal ; that when they have made 

 that determination, and not till then, is it proper that any evidence 

 bearing upon the question of regulations should be submitted to the 

 Tribunal. That has been the British contention up to the time of the 

 present argument. That is the ground assumed in the Cases and in 

 the Counter Cases on tlie part of Great Britain. That is the ground 

 taken by Lord Eosebery in his argument; and it is a necessary conse- 

 quence of that theory that there are to be two hearings, two decisions, 

 two awards, althougii the Treaty makes provision but for one hearing, 

 one decision, one award; and I want to call your attention here to the 

 X)osition which has been taken in the British Counter Case. I have 

 read from the Case and I have read from the diplomatic coinmunica- 

 ations to show that that was the position of Great Britain up to the 

 time of their delivery of the Counter Case. I have not read anything 

 showing that it continued to be their position alter that time. I now 

 call the attention of the Tribunal to the British Counter Case, and 

 what is said upon page 3 — 



The subject of the regulations (if any) which are necessary and the waters over 

 which the regulations shall extend, referred to in Article VII of the Treaty, is con- 

 sidered in Part II. For reasons more explicitly stated in correspondence which will 

 be found in the Aj)pendix. — 



(That is the Eosebery and Foster correspondence. — ) 



For reasons more explicitly stated in correspondence which will be found in the 

 Apyiendix, the consideration of this point has been created in this Counter Case, but 

 only in deference to the wish expressedb.y the United States that argument upon all 

 the questions with which the Arbitrators may have to deal should be placed before 

 the Tribunal by means of the Case and Counter Case. 



That is not a correct representation of any wish ever ex])ressed by 

 the United States, or of any views expressed by the United States. 

 The views expressed by the United States were that all original evidence 

 upon the question of regulations should go into the Case, and not into 

 the Counter Case. 



Lord Eosebery continues : "The Government of Her BritannicMajesty 

 have adduced these arguments under protest, without prejudice to their 

 contention that the Arbitrators cannot enter upon or consider the ques- 

 tion of the proj)osed internationalregulations unt il they have adjudicated 

 upon the five questions enumerated in Article VI upon which they are 

 by the terms of the Treaty required to give a distinct decision; and 

 upon the determination of which alone depends the question whether 

 they shall enter upon the subject of regulations. Her Majesty's Gov- 

 ernment reserve also their right to adduce further evidence on this 

 subject, should the nature of the arguments contained in the Counter 

 Case on behalf of the United States render such a course necessary or 

 expedient." 



The Tribunal will observe that the learned counsel for Great Britain 

 now repeat their adhesion to the interpretation contained in the Eose- 

 bery corresjiondeuce, that it is not regular or legitimate, or permissible, 



