PROTOCOLS. 67 



Baron de Conrcel abstained fioui voting-. 



In coiiseiiuence the aineiuliiieiit proposed by Senator Morgan was 

 rejected. 



Mr. Gregers Gram here expressed the desire that it be well under- 

 stood that tlie Tribunal, in answering as it has done the foregoing- 

 questions, did not propose to decide what are, according to the princi- 

 ples of international law, the ordinary limits of territorial waters. 



The arbitrators concur that tliey do not feel themselves called on to 

 decide what, according to the principles of international law, are the 

 ordinary limits of territorial waters. 



Those limits have been assumed for the purposes of the award to be 

 3 miles fiom the coast, in accordance witli the wording of the litth ques- 

 tion of Article VI of the treaty. 



Senator Morgan here asked that the following morion be taken into 

 consideration: 



I move that the Trihnnal of Arhitration i^roceed in sucli order as may he p]'o])cr, 

 hefore a final award is made in the case, to consider and deckire the ri,i;hts of the 

 citizens and subjects of either country as regards the taking- of lur-seal in or resort- 

 ing to tlie waters of Bering Sea. 



This inquiry and decision includes the entire; herd that resorts, hahitu.illy, in the 

 sunnner and autumn, to the islands of St. Paul and St. George, in leering Sea. 



The answers given to the live points stated in Article VI of the treaty do not, in 

 my .iudgment, answer the question above stated, which the treaty provides shall be 

 submitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration; and an award that does not specifically 

 answer that (juestion can not be "a full, perfect, and iiual settleiucnt of all the 

 questions referred to the arbitration.'' 



I would proceed to point out the grounds and reasons on which I base this motion, 

 bnt I am aware that, in the opinions delivered by a majority of the arbitrators, I hey 

 consider either that this (pie.stion is not required by the tueaty to be specifically 

 answered or that it has been answered, in effect, by a decision of a majority of the 

 Tribunal upon the fifth point stated in Article VI of the treaty, under which the Tri- 

 bunal is actiug. 



This motion gave rise to a debate. 



Mr. Justice Harlan atul Senator Morgan voted for its adoption. 



Baron de Conrcel, Lord Ilannen, Sir John Tliompson, Maiquis Yis- 

 conti Yenosta, and Mr. Gregers Gram, constituting a majoiity of the 

 arbitrators, considered that the answers to all the questions referred to 

 in Article I of the said treaty are to be found in the decisions which 

 have been rendered upon the five points mentioned in Article VI, and 

 voted against tliis motion. 



In cofisequence, the motion was rejected. 



The arbitrators, having reached this point of tlieir deliberations, con- 

 curred in liolding that the decisions rendered by tliem on Uie ([iiestioiis 

 as to tlie exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, mentioned in 

 Article VI of the treaty, "leave the subject in sm-h position that the 

 concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the estal)]isliment of 

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

 in or habitually resorting to the Bering Sea." 



