lation of Argnment," the following is the position taken by the British 

 Government: 



19. — No regulations atlecting British subjects can be established for 

 the protection and preservation of fur-seals in the nonterritorial waters 

 of Bering Sea without the concurrence of Great Britain. 



That statement is quite in line with the power of this Tribunal to 

 declare either that it accorded with tlie legal rights of British subjects, 

 or that it did not. That was not an assault on the powers of the 

 Tribunal, but a strong appeal to its judgment on an alleged right of 

 British subjects. 



The other statement on this subject, found in the British Case, I 

 have already quoted, but will repeat. It is taken from an outline of 

 argument on page 9, and is as follows : 



Finally, that while Gl-eat Britain has from the first strenuously and 

 consistently opposed all the foregoing exceptional pretensions and 

 claims, she has throughout been lavorably disposed to the adoption of 

 general measures of control of the fur-seal fishery, should tliese 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 just 

 grounds of common interest, and that the adhesion of other poivcrs be 

 secured as a guarantee of their continued and impartial execution. 



The objections raised in the British counter case (above cited) to the 

 jurisdiction of the Tribunal of Arbitration are far more urgent in their 

 demand for diplomatic settlement than the question, that was settled 

 in that way, relating to the matter of the determination of Great 

 Britain to abide by and perform the award of the tribunal. 



If, however, the Tribunal of Arbitration shall determine to proceed to 

 a final award without referring this vital question, as to their powers, 

 to the two Governments for their further consideration they must incur 

 the risk of having their award rei)udiated by the one Government or 

 the other. 



The case of the United States is based in a large part, if not most 

 largely, upon the fact that the Tribunal of Arbitration has the powers 

 that are indicated in the two propositions stated in the motion of Mr- 

 Justice Harlan. Much more .than half of the testimony offered and 

 cited by the counsel for the respective Governments was adduced in 

 elucidation of the subject of the regulations that are proper for the 

 protection and preservation of fur-seals in the Korth Pacific Ocean. 

 It is, taken together, an immense mass of facts and expert opinions. 



The argument of counsels on the part of the United States were 

 addressed at great length and with untiring industry and the highest 



