tlie two coinitries, as are liabiiually traversed by tliese fur-soal, and 

 embiaciug- the luontlis duiing wbicli fur-seal may be taken in the open 

 seas, and during wbicli "closed season" all hunting of seals in such 

 waters shall be forbidden, provided the facts show tbat regulations of 

 that character are necessary " for the proper protection and preserva- 

 tion of the fur-seal in, or habitually resorting to, Behring Sea." 



The motion of Mr. Justice Harlan that I have just read was sub- 

 mitted to the Tribunal of Arbitration on Saturday, July 15, at the first 

 meeting of the Arbitrators for consultation, after the close of the oral 

 arguments of counsel. 



This motion relates to two disputed questions as to the powers of 

 the tribunal, which were raised and formally presented by the Govern- 

 ment of Great Britain, in its counter case, on February 3, 1893, as 

 follows (page 162) : 



The position here taken on the part of Great Britain is that already 

 taken in the original case. It is there stated: 



"Finally, that while Great Britain has from the first strenuously and 

 consistently opposed all the foregoing exceptional x>retensions and 

 claims, she has througliout been favorably disiwsed to the adoption of 

 general measures of control of the fur-seal fishery should these be 

 found to be necessary or desirable with a view to the protection of the 

 fur-seals, provided that such measures be equitable and framed on 

 iust grounds of common interest, and that the adhesion of other potccrs 

 be secured as a guaranty of their continued and impartial execution." 



For the correspondence on this point the Arbitrators are respect- 

 fully referred to the appendix to tlie United States Case. 



A claim is made in tlie concluding words of the United States Case 

 that such regulations be "prescribed by this high tribunal as will 

 effectually prohibit and prevent the capture anywhere upon the high 

 seas of any seals belonging to the said herd." 



Her Majesty's Government respectfully protests that no power to 

 impose on the contra(!ting ijarties a total prohibition of pelagic sealing 

 is conferred on the tribunal by the arbitration treaty, whether the 

 assent of other nations be or be not made a condition of such prohi- 

 bition. 



Article vii empowers the Arbitrators to "determine what concur- 

 rent regulations outside the jurisdictional limits of the resi)ective gov- 

 ernments are necessary, and over what waters such regulations should 

 extend." 



The power thus conferred relates to the only area in dispute, viz, 

 the waters of Behring Sea eastward of the line of demarcation spec- 

 ified in the Treaty of Cession of 18G7, and excludes the supposition 

 that prohibition could have been intended. 



I have copied the full statement of the British Government as to its 

 position on this subject, both in the Case and Counter Case, that w^e 

 may have the whole subject before us in the connected form in which 

 it is thus presented in the British Counter Case. 



It wiU be seen that Great Britain in stating its objections and pro- 



