t'lNAL REPORl' OF THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 9 



judicial procedure in asking- tlie Tribiiiial to correct the injustice by a 

 rejection of this evidence, counsel stated that the United States was 

 content to allow the arbitration to proceed upon the case and counter 

 case of each party as presented, but that the wrong already committed 

 should not be ag gravated by the introduction of further testimony as 

 proposed by means of the supplementary report. After argument by 

 counsel for Great Britain the Tribunal decided that the report should 

 not be received as evidence. 



It is not deemed necessary to set forth in detail the claims of the two 

 parties as prescribed in the Treaty of Arbitration or the issues joined 

 before the Tribunal. These are fully stated in the case, counter case, 

 and j)rinted argument of each Government whi(;h accompany this 

 report. It is sufficient to note that three subjects were submitted to 

 the Tribunal for its consideration and decision. The first of tiiese 

 related to the Eussian claim of exclusive jurisdiction in Bering Sea; 

 the second to the right of the United States to x^rotection or j^rop- 

 erty in the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands, and the third to the concur- 

 rent regulations necessary for the i)roper protection and preservation of 

 these seals. 



The oral argument on these questions provided for in Article V of the 

 treaty began on the 12th of April. By arrangement of counsel, it was 

 agreed that the United States should open and close the argument, 

 Mr. Carter and Mr. Coudert si)eakiiig for the United States, followed 

 by the attorney-general of England, Sir Richard E. Webster, and 

 Mr. Eobinsou for Great Britain, and Mr. Phelps for the United States, 

 closing the argument. The discussion extended until July 8, with a 

 recess of one week, the Tribunal holding sessions of four hours during 

 four days of each week. 



Early in the preparation of the case of the United States the conclu- 

 sion was reached that it would be difficult to sustain the claims which 

 had been put forward by the United States in the diplomatic corre- 

 spondence as to the exclusive jurisdiction exercised by Russia over the 

 waters of Bering Sea previous to the cession of Alaska. Counsel for 

 the United States made earnest efforts in support, as far as possible, 

 of the position assumed by our Government in the diplomatic corre- 

 spondence, but the decision of the Tribunal on the first four points of 

 Article VI was not unexpected. 



On the fifth point of Article VI, as to the right of protection or prop- 

 erty in the fur seals of the Pribilof Islands, counsel for the United States 

 felt themselves upon solid ground of law and of fact. The assertion, 

 indeed, of a right of property in seals which spent half the year in 

 remote regions of the seas w\as .^udeed a novel one, but novelty itself is 

 no objection to a proposition, and they felt entirely confident of their 

 ability to show that according to the universal laws which underlie the 

 institution of property the fur seals must be deemed to be the property 

 of the United States. 



