ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 127 



Aucl point Five of article 6 I will uow read: 



Has the United States any right, and if so what right, of protection or property 

 in the fur-seals frt .qneiiting the islands of the United States in Behring Sea, when 

 sucli seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit? 



That is tlie Article which presents the question of property, and the 

 title to this chapter wliich my learned friend desires me to read is, 

 "Consideration of allegations of fact i>ut forward by tlie United States 

 in connection with point 5 of article 6." There is a devotion of 100 

 pages to the consideration of testimony in relation to the natnre and 

 habits of seals and the characteristics of seal life as bearing upon the 

 question of property — all connected together in an argumentative chain 

 of reasoning, designed to show that upon those facts the United States 

 has no property in them. I mean to submit upon this, may it please 

 the learned Arbitrators, that the assertion of the learned counsel upon 

 the otiier side that the questions relating- to seal life are not applicable 

 to any of the first five questions stated, and tlierefore should not go 

 into the Case, are contradicted by their own action. 



Mr. Justice Haklan. — Mr. Carter, I find on looking at the proof of 

 the debate when Sir Cliarles Eussell was upon his feet, assuming this 

 to be correct, I put to him the question — he was discussing the origin 

 or basis of the right of j)roperty : 



Whether it depends on municipal or international law, how far does the question 

 of the right of property depend njion the facts of seal life? 



The answer was: 



I have said that in my judgment, so far as the facts of seal life are material for 

 the (juestion of law as to property in seals, they are not in dispute. 



Then I put the questions in a different form : 



When we come to determine the question if the United States has any right or 

 property in these seals or in the herd, do we consider', and ought we to take into 

 consideration, the facts in seal life? 



The answer reported is: 



Certainly. So far as they are material, certainly. 



Sir Charles Russell. — So far as they are material, certainly. 



Mr. Carter. — Yes, Sir; and yet the contention on the part of the 

 learned counsel has been, and tlie contention throughout this diplo- 

 matic correspondence has been — and it is upon that contention that 

 they defend their withholding of evidence in relation to seal life — that 

 it does not bear upon the question of property and does bear upon the 

 question of regulations. 



The President. — Is there no evidence adduced by Great Britain in 

 support of these 100 pages of the Counter Case which you have just 

 alluded to. 



Mr. Carter. — None in their case. 



The President. — Put in the Counter Case. 



Mr. Carter — Oh, volumes of it, and for the first time; and that is 

 what we complain of. If evidence upon the question of seal life bore 

 upon the question of property, that was one of the five questions upon 

 which the arbitrators were called upon to make explicit answers; and 

 everything beaiing upon those questions is by the concession of all 

 parties to be incorporated into the original Case, and yet not one word 

 in respect to seal life was put by them in their original Case. 



That, the learned President will remember, was the subject of our 

 complaint; and the answer to our complaint was, "That evidence is not 

 relevant here; it bears only upon the question of regulations, and the 



