ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 113 



trators. It is not a qitestion at all as to the time or the manner in 

 which the Arbitrators are to determine any of tlie qnestions snbmitted 

 to tlieni nnder the Treaty. That is another matter. 



In the first place, there is one Case provided for, and only one; there 

 is one Connter Case i)rovided for, and onh/ one; and that is the only mode 

 provided for by the Treaty in which evidence can be snbmitted at all. 



In the next place, there is a written argument provided for, and only 

 one. In the next place, a hearing is provided for, and the day fixed for 

 it, and only one hearing. In the next place, an mcard is provided for, 

 and only one award. 



It is entirely manifest, therefore, that there is to be bnt one decision 

 in this Arbitration. The evidence is now all before the Tribunal. It is 

 in part argued in writing. It will be fully argued orally. The Tribu- 

 nal will retire for the purpose of decision; they will proceed, in the 

 first place, I sui)pose, to decide the first five questions submitted by 

 the Treaty. If their decision leaves the subject in such condition that 

 no Eegulations are necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal, they 

 will not consider any Regulations at all, but make up their decisiou 

 upon the questions which they do decide, and j)ublish it by their award. 

 If, however, their decision should be of a character to make it neces- 

 sary to go into the question of Regulations, they will go into the ques- 

 tion of regulations; and whenever they determine them they will 

 include in their award the decision upon the five first questions sub- 

 mitted to them, and also the Kegulations which they determine upon 

 and establish, and that all at one time, and in one document, by one 

 instrument, one act. 



That will be the course of thing's. Now we come to see what is the 

 contentioTi upon the other side and what there is to support that. 

 Article VII contains the first tiling which they rely upon: 



"If the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive 

 jurisdiction of the United States shall leave the subject in such a 

 position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the estab- 

 lishment of Kegulations for the pro[)er ju^otection and preservation of 

 the fur-seal in or habitually resorting to the Behring Sea, the Arbitra- 

 tors shall then determine what concurrent regulations outside of the 

 jurisdictional limits of the resix'ctive Governments are necessary." 



That creates no difficulty. It says that the Arbitrators "shall then 

 determine.'''' It does not say that the Arbitrators shall then proceed to 

 receive evidence; nor does it intimate it. 



The President,— Do you not think the word " then " covers the 

 same ground"^ " Shall then determine the concurrent Regulations, and 

 to aid them in that determination, the re])ort of the joint commission 

 to be appointed shall be laid before them." I mean to say does not the 

 word "then" api)ly to the latter part of the phrase so that it means 

 " Shall then be laid before them" ? 



Mr. Carter. — That would be putting in another "then"? 



The President. — No; I mean to say do you not think the word 

 "then" covers both jiarts of the i»hrase? I ask for your opinion. 



JNIr. Carter. — I don't think it does at all. By grammatical position 

 the word "then" does not belong- there. If w^e could gather from the 

 Treaty generally that there was to be a separate decision upon the first 

 five questions, and then a recei)tion of evidence ujion this point of regu- 

 lations; if we could gather from the Treaty generally any evidence that 

 that was the pur])ose and object of the parties, then certainly the word 

 "then" would qualify the whole matter; but as the Treaty is written 

 it is repugiumt to it. 

 B S, PT XI 8 



