219 



sanctioned by tlie legislation of the two Governments, slioukl, by reason of tlieir 

 express provisions, or by their practical operation, resalt in preventing the hunting 

 and taking of these seals dnring the seasons when the condition of said waters 

 admits of fur seals being taken by pelagic sealers.") 



The scheme i^roposed by myself may he objected to upon the ground 

 that the reguhxtions which it embodies are self-executing, whereas it is 

 argued this Tribunal lias only the power to recommend the adoption of 

 regulations, leaving it to the two Governments to enforce them by legis- 

 lation. I do not assent to this view of the competency of this Tribunal. 

 The two (j-overnments contemplated, and we are so informed by the 

 Treaty, that the result of our proceedings should be considered " as a 

 full, perfect, and final settlement of all the questions referred to the 

 Arbitrators." (Article XIV.) Our final decision or award, when made, 

 will become, in legal effect, a part of the Treaty, as much so as if it was 

 embodied in it. But the Treaty, when thus perfected, will not be a full, 

 perfect, and final settlement of the controversy, if the decision or award 

 is so framed as to amount to nothing practically until the two nations 

 shall have had further negotiations and agreed upon such additional 

 concurrent legislation as will be required in order that tlie award shall 

 become oi)erative for the proper protection and preservation of this race. 

 I find nothing in the Treatj^ looking to such a condition of things as the 

 result of our proceedhigs. Under the Constitution of the United States, 

 a treaty, made pursuant to that instrTinu^.nt, and duly ratified, becomes 

 "the supreme law of the land," without the aid of legislation, except 

 that legislation will be required where the treaty provides for the pay- 

 ment of money. This exception arises from the provision in that Con- 

 stitution tliat "no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in con- 

 sequence of appropriations made by law," Of course, if, under the 

 British Constitution, regulations established by the Tribunal, providing 

 for the seizure of vessels and the punishment of i)ersons offending 

 against such regulations, can not be made applicable to British vessels 

 and British subjects, without legislative sanction, we must rely upon 

 the good faith of the two Governments interested to give effect to our 

 decision by appropriate enactments. But I do not understand the 

 British Constitution to require legislative approval of the regulations 

 prescribed by the Tribunal before they can become operative against 

 British vessels and British subjects. We have been invested by the 

 two Governments with full power, as Senator Morgan has well said, to 

 write into the Treaty of February 29, 1892, such regulations as we find 

 necessary and such as will be immediately effectual for the proper pro- 

 tection and preservation of these fur seals when they are outside the 



