207 



But it is said tbat, as the two governments have agreed "to coop- 

 erate in securing the adhesion of other powers to such regulations" as 

 may be established, the Tribunal must do notlung likely to defeat any 

 effort that may be made to obtain this adhesion of other nations. If 

 we lind from the evidence — and, in my opinion, the evidence conclu- 

 sively shows — that this race can not be preserved, but will be entirely 

 destroyed for all commercial purposes if pelagic sealing is permitted to 

 any material extent, then our duty is to make regulations that will 

 protect the race against such an attack. We must assume that civilized 

 nations will approve and make apidicable to their peoples any regula- 

 tions which have for their object, and which plainly will secnre, the 

 preservation of this race for the benefit of numkind. Surely, there 

 can not be "proper" protection and preservation of these seals, when 

 in the high sens, if the regulations adopted by the Tribunal admit of 

 pelagic sealing to an extent that will serionsly endanger the existence 

 of the race. If that mode of taking these seals for nse can be permitted 

 to an extent that does not materially endanger the integrity of the race, 

 then I concede that to that extent — the Tribnnal having determined 

 the questions of i)roperty and protection against the United States — it 

 may be allowed. I protest against any interpretation of the treaty 

 which assumes that other nations will refuse to give their support to 

 any regulations except such as are based upon a mere comjji'omise, as 

 between Great Britain and the United States, which leaves this race of 

 animals unprotected against destruction. 



In view of the diplomatic correspondence which has been i)laced in 

 our hands, there is ground for surprise at the earnestness with which 



is contended that other nations could not be expected to assent to 

 regulations that would suppress pelagic sealing, and that this Tribunal, 

 when considering the subject of regulations applicable to the peoples of 

 the United States and Great Britain, should permit the inquiry as to 

 what regulations are in fact necessary to be controlled by conjecture 

 as to what might be agreeable to other nations than those who made 

 the Treaty. From that correspondence (some of which is given in 

 the margin*), it will distinctly appear that Lord Salisbury proposed 



* What is now the seventh article of tlio Treaty was proposed by President Har- 

 rison as early as Juno 25, 1891. (U. S. Case, Vol. I, App., .319.) 



It having been proposed that the two Governments should sign the text of tho 

 seven articles to be inserted in the Arbitration Agreement, and of the .Joint Commis- 

 sion Article, as settled in the diplomatic correspondence, in order to record the 



