14 



bunnl as being in violation of tlic plain provisions of the treaty if tliey 

 should hold that they have no i)ower under the treaty to extend what- 

 ever regulations they may find to be necessary for the i^roper protection 

 of the fur-seals into the Northern Pacific Ocean. 



As we fully concur in that view of the treaty and believe that the 

 seal herd will be speedily destroyed if proper regulations for their pro- 

 tection in Behring Sea and in the North Pacific Ocean are refused, we 

 feel compelled to seek a full opportunity to present the subject to our 

 colleagues without tlie embarrassment that must attend its investigation 

 in the presence of a pending and undecided objection on the part of 

 Great Britain that we have no right to consider the subject of regula- 

 tions applicable to the North Pacific Ocean, because this tribunal has 

 no power to award any regulations to apply outside the area of Behring 

 Sea. 



We believe that the proper way and, indeed, the only way to secure 

 an unembarrassed consideration of this subject on its merits is to 

 take up the objection of Great Britain to the jurisdiction of this tri- 

 bunal and dispose of it. I believe that every consideration of just and 

 proper procedure in this case requires that this vital question as to the 

 powers of this tribunal should be disposed of before any other question 

 in the case is taken up. The questions of extending regulations beyond 

 the area of Behring Sea into the North Pacific Ocean and of prohibit- 

 ing pelagic sealing in Bering Sea can never be fairly considered upon 

 their merits under the pressure of a pending objection made by Great 

 Britain that, whatever convictions an Arbitrator may have as to the 

 necessity of such regulations, the tieaty forbids such action by the 

 Tribunal of Arbitration. 



The justice of the request that this question shall be disposed of in 

 limine, aside from its logical propriety, is manifest, when it is considered 

 that Great Britain has made this serious objection to the powers of 

 the tribunal and yet insists that its objection shall not be heard until 

 the case has been heard and decided, in all other respects, upon the 

 merits. 



Can it be justly claimed that, if the case should be decided in favor 

 of the contention of Great Britain on every other point, on the merits, 

 that Government could at its pleasure, peruiit or prevent regulations 

 from being adopted applicable to the North Pacific Ocean, however 

 necessary they may be, on the ground taken in its objection to the 

 jurisdiction of this tribunal that it has no j)ower under the treaty to 

 make such regulations ? 



