ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 135 



at least, the subject is left in a position which requires the concurrence 

 of Great Britain ; but the decision of the Tribunal in reference to the 

 5th question is in favor of the United States, awarding to it a full prop- 

 erty interest. Does that alter the case? Wliat is the effect of that 

 decision upon the subject? Is the subject then left in sucli a position 

 that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary! That will depend 

 on the opinion of the Arbitrators as to the right which the United 

 States has to protect an admitted property interest outside of the three- 

 mile limit. If they should be of the opinion that it follows from the 

 determination of the property interest in the United States, such as it 

 claims, that it does have the Vull right of protection, it may then think 

 that no assistance is necessary for the preservation of fur-seals, by 

 regulations, and that the concurrence of Great Britain is not necessary, 

 but that the United States, having the power to prevent pelagic seal- 

 ing, is fully armed with the right to take whatever measures are neces- 

 sary for the protection of fur-seals. 



Suppose, however, they happen to be of the view, which has been 

 taken by Great Britain in the course of this controversy at some times — 

 whether it will be still persisted in argument, I cannot say — namely, 

 though the United States may have a property interest in the fur-seals, 

 it cannot seize a vessel outvside the ordinary three-mile limit that is 

 engaged in pelagic sealing then it would be necessary to have the con- 

 currence of Great Britain to make etfectual regulations for the pres- 

 ervation of the fur-seal. 



Let me suppose the contrary view, and that the foregoing question 

 relating to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States included all 

 these five questions, the property (piestion, as well, what will be the 

 course of procedure then? The Arbitrators will make a decision on all 

 these five questions. Then the question which they will have to con- 

 sider will be, does the decision which we have made on these five ques- 

 tions leave the subject in "such position that the concurrence of Great 

 Britain is necessary for the establishment of regulations to preserve 

 the fur seals'?" And let it be supposed, again, that the decision is 

 adverse to the United States on the first four questions and in favour 

 of the United States on the fifth. Well, they would go through with 

 precisely the same considerations which I described them as being 

 obliged to go through with on the supposition that these foregoing 

 questions, as to jurisdiction, relate only to the first four questions and 

 do not include the property question. It would be the same thing in 

 any event, and if we suppose that the decision of the Arbitrators should 

 be against the United States on the question of jurisdiction, then of 

 course it would be their view that the concurrence of Great Britain 

 would be necessary as to regulations to preserve the fur-seal. It, 

 therefore, seems to me, so far as I can perceive, that no practical 

 importance of any considerable moment rests upon the question, 

 whether Ave regard the term "the foregoing questions as to the exclu- 

 sive jurisdiction of the United States" as embracing the first four ques- 

 tions mentioned in Article I or embracing the entire five. 



That is the explanation I desire to make. — With this I should stop, 

 and I had said to the Tribunal that I should not again touch the ques- 

 tion relative to the introduction of the paper which was the subject of 

 our motion, but I reckoned a little without my host. There is a single 

 position taken by my learned friend, Sir Charles Eussell, to which I 

 have not replied, and to which if I should fail to reply it would be per- 

 haps taken as a concession, and I do not desire that I should be consid- 

 ered as making any concession on that point. I shall say but a word 



