24 



This is a controversy between two Governnionts tliat hold a pecnliar 

 relation to tlie fur-seals in the eastern waters of the North Pacific 

 Ocean. The peculiarities of that situation must, larj^ely, control or 

 modify the equitable rights of the parties in their dealings with the 

 subject and in the establishment of regulations to secure their obedi- 

 ence to the rules of right and justice that pervade all laws. 



The two Governments resorted to arbitration for the peaceful settle- 

 ment of their controversy, because the strict and unbending rules of 

 international law, or their meager treatment of such subjects, were not 

 equal to the emergency of the case, nor offered a precedent for the 

 satisfactory adjustment of the right claimed by the United States. The 

 settlement of this matter does not, necessarily, establish any rule 

 of international law, or declare any such rule. It will establish a 

 rule, inter partes, which they, by agreement, may rescind at pleasure. 

 It can only become a rule of international law by the general adhesion 

 of other powers. 



So, I hold that the duty is included within the scope of the powers 

 of this tribunal to determine what are the just and equitable powers 

 and rights of the respective Governments that should be exercised 

 severally, or concurrently, in maintaining and executing the avowed 

 purpose of both, to protect and i3reserve the fur-seals. The question 

 of the right of property, or protection, has this relation, and none 

 other, to the great and novel subject submitted to this tribunal. 



