SIXTH DAY, APRIL 7™, 1893. 



The President. — Will you please to continue your argument, Mr. 

 Carter? 



Mr. Carter — Mr. President, my argument yesterday was very 

 largely confined to a history and a description of the modes in which 

 the Case and Counter Case had been prepared, of the different views of 

 the parties respecting the interpretation of the Treaty upon the point as 

 to how they should be prei)ared. The efforts which had been made to 

 accommodate those differences of opinion, the hope which had been 

 entertained that those differences had been accommodated, the failure 

 of that hope, all of which have been subjects of debate by Counsel who 

 have preceded me, and all of which have a bearing, although not a vital 

 bearing, on the immediate question before the Tribunal. 



Kear the close of the session, however, I was dealing particularly with 

 the support which is supposed by Counsel for Great Britain to be given 

 for their interpretation of the Treaty in the language of the seventh 

 Article. That is the subject, therefore, upon which I shall resume my 

 line of argument, and as it may not be fully in the minds of the Arbi- 

 trators, I shall again read the Article and state the contention which is 

 built upon it by the Counsel for Great Britain. "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, the Behring Sea, the Arbitrators shall then 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 determination the Report 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 suggestion is, the contention is, that this means that the Report 

 of the joint Commissioners thus referred to and the other evidence thus 

 referred to are to be laid before the Tribunal after the decision to 

 which it shall have arrived and not before. I stated at the time, that, 

 upon the face of the Article^ there was nothing at all unreasonable in 

 that suggestion, and that it might possibly be so; but when you fully 

 consider the character and consequences of that interpretation, it seems 

 to be wholly inadmissible for these reasons. — First, it supposes that 

 there are to be two decisions by the Tribunal: first a decision upon the 

 questions as to tlie exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, and 

 then a decision upon the subject of regulations; and if two decisions, 

 then two awards, all of which is in direct repugnance to the terms of 

 the Treaty. In the next place, it supposes tliat a part of the evidence 

 in the Case, and I may add, and should add, by far the most imj^ortant 

 evidence in the Case — more important in the sense that it is tlie only 

 part of the evidence which is disputable — that the disputable part of 



116 



