6 FINAL REPORT OF THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



in the filth point of Article VI, concerning the right of protection or 

 property asserted by the United States in the seals inhabiting the 

 Pribilof Islands, and in Article VII, concerning concurrent regulations. 



By direction of the President, the Secretary of State addressed a 

 note to the British representative in Washington, under date of Sep- 

 tember 27, 1892, protesting against this omission in the printed case of 

 Great Britain, as a failure to comply Avith the requirement of the 

 treaty. Attention was called to the fact that it was manifestly con- 

 templated by that compact that both parties should simultaneously 

 submit to the arbitrators and to each other their propositions, their 

 claims, and their evidence upon all points in dispute; that it v.'as well 

 known to the British Government that the decision of the two ques- 

 tions above referred to nuist depend upon the evidence produced 

 concerning the nature and habits of the fur seal, and the methods of 

 capture and killing, which are consistent with the jireservation of the 

 species; that only one opportunity was afforded each party to submit 

 evidence upon these important questions, and that was to be availed 

 of in the original case, except so far as evidence in rebuttal might be 

 legitimate in the counter case; that to reserve the evidence which 

 Great Britain might choose to submit on these matters to the counter 

 case would be to afford to the United States no opportunity whatever 

 to meet it by any rebutting, explanatory, or impeaching testimony; 

 and that the United States could not assent to results so grossly 

 unjust and prejudicial, and so contrary to the spirit and terms of the 

 treaty. The Secretary of State ex])ressed the earnest desire of the 

 President that the arbitration should proceed, but only according to 

 the treaty, the object of which was to provide a fair trial; and that he 

 entertained the greatest confidence that the British Government would 

 correct the errors which had been made by its representatives in 

 charge of its case 



To this representation the Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Great 

 Britain responded that the fifth point of Article VI, respecting the 

 right of protection and of property in tlie seals, in the opinion of Her 

 Britannic Majesty's Government, depended upon questions of law, and 

 not upon the habits of seals and the incidents of seal life; that the 

 concairrent regulations referred to in Article VII were not to be taken 

 up for consideration by the Tribunal, except in the contingency of a 

 decision u])on the five points in Article VI unfavorable to the claim of 

 the United States, and so that the subject Avould be left in such a 

 position that the concurrence of Great Britain should be necessary 

 for the establishment of proper regulations; and that it would have 

 been inconsistent, illogical, and im])roper to have introduced into the 

 British case matter which, in the opinion of his Government, could only 

 be legitimately used when the question of concurrent regulations was 

 under consideration. But the Government of the United States having 

 expressed a different view, Her Majesty's Government, the Secretary 



