test against the existence of tliese l)0^\ ers nndcr tlie treaty of Febrnary 

 29, 1892, and tlieir exercise by tlie Tribnnal of Arbitration, makes no 

 reference to anything except the text of the treaty. No anibignity in 

 any part of the treaty is suggested and, consequently. Great Britain 

 had no occasion to go outside of the text of the treaty in order to pre- 

 sent distinctly the grounds of objection to the power of this tribunal 

 to make such regulations as are stated in the foregoing extracts from 

 the British counter case. This tribunal must for that reason, and for 

 every reason that could exist in respect to its warrant of authority to 

 take any valid action in this proceeding, look to the text of the treaty 

 alone for its powers. 



There is, then, no occasion for delay in responding to the objection 

 and protest of Great Britian as above stated, for it is not possible that 

 any further facts can be presented that would throw any light upon 

 the subject. 



This challenge of the powers and authority of the Tribuiml of Arbi- 

 tration, and this protest against their action in determining any regu- 

 lations to restrain, or prohibit, pelagic fur-sealing outside the waters of 

 Bering Sea, was not presented as a diplomatic (|uestion to the Gov- 

 ernment of the United States, but is now for the tirst time presented 

 as a protest to the tribunal, to warn it against the usurpation of unwar- 

 ranted powers, and a statenient that the powers mentioned in the 

 l)rotest are not conferred upon the tribunal. 



Under no circumstances is it to be assumed that these objections to 

 the powers of the tribunal are lightly suggested to excite inquiry or to 

 awaken the attention of the tribunal, coming as they do from a most 

 enlightened and powerful Government, or that their effect will not be 

 felt in subsequent inquiries by Great Britain into the question whether 

 the tribunal has acted ultra vires, if its award should injuriously atfect 

 the interests of the subjects of Great Britain. Moreover, these objec- 

 tions and protests were repeated in the most earnest way by the 

 attorney-general of Great Britain, and by each of the able counsel who 

 assisted him, in the written and oral arguments made before the tribunal. 

 It is not necessary to call attention, in detail, to these arguments, 

 for the record of them is preserved, and their ability and learning is so 

 conspicuous that their inlbience can not be ignored. 



These objections to the powers of the Tribunal, as to the regulation of 

 pelagic sealing, were first t'Aken in the British Counter Case. 



In the original Case, on page IGO, in paragraph 19 of the "Eecapitu- 



