134 ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 



confinftdto the four first questions and does not include the question of 

 property. 



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

 jurisdiction of the United States shall leave the subject in such i)osition 

 that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the establislunent 

 of Eegulations for the proper protection and preservation of the fur-seal 

 in or habitually resorting to the Behriug sea, the Arbitrators shall then 

 determine what concurrent Regulations outside the jurisdictional limits 

 of the respective governments are necessary", etc. If we limit that to 

 the four first questions what would be the grounds of i)roceediiig? 



The President. — Do you not think that we might reserve these very 

 interesting observations for our next sitting! 



Mr. Carter. — After the recess? 



The President. — Yes, after the recess. It would afford you occasion 

 for a rest, and I dare say you require a little rest yourself. 



(The Tribunal thereupon took a recess for a short time.) 



Mr. Carter. — I was speaking, when the Tribunal took its recess, upon 

 amatter about which there has been some debate, but which is not vital 

 to the present motion at all, respecting the interpretation which is to be 

 placed upon the words in the seventh Article of the Treaty, namely: 

 "The foregoing questions as to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United 

 , States." I had said that that was susceptible of two interpretations, 

 one of which would limit these foregoing questions to the first four 

 stated in Article VI and did not include the property question, and the 

 other interpretation would include all of them, the property question as 

 well. I also observed that it did not seem to me that anything of prac- 

 tical importance depended upon which of those views should be taken 

 to be the true one, for the result as it seemed to me, would in either 

 case be the same. It is that which I wish very briefly to show to the 

 Tribunal — that the resolt would be the same in either case. After the 

 arguments have been finally concluded, it will be the duty of the Arbi- 

 trators to proceed according to the first provision of Article VI: "In 

 deciding the matters submitted to the Arbitrators, it is agreed that the 

 following five points shall be submitted to them in order that their 

 award shall embrace a distinct decision upon each of said five points." 

 Therefore, their first task will be to make their decision on those five 

 points. Let us assume it to have been made, and that the decision in 

 respect to the 5th point is that the United States lias the full property 

 interest in the far seals Avhich it asserts. Let me suppose, for the pur- 

 pose of argument, that that state of things is found to exist when the 

 Arbitrators have complied with their duty, and decided the first five 

 questions. It will then become necessary for them to consider whether 

 the subject is left "in such position that the concurrence of Great Britain 

 is necessary to the establishment of Regulations for the proper protec- 

 tion and preservation of the fur-seal in, or habitually resorting to the 

 Behring Sea." Suppose they put upon that clause the narrower inter- 

 l)retation, namely that it includes only the first four questions, and ask 

 whether the subject is then left "in such position that the concurrence 

 of Great Britain is necessary". Let me assume that the decision is 

 adverse to the United States on the four points, and on the fifth point 

 is fully and completely in favor of the United States. Then the ques- 

 tion with the Arbitrators is: Does the decision of the Tribunal on the 

 first four questions leave the subject "in such position that the concur- 

 rence of Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of Regulations 

 for the preservation of the fur-seal ". Well, of course, the first four 

 questions having been decided adversely to the United States, so far, 



