76 



ranted and required to add some other views, arising' npon the wliole 

 treaty, as to the matters now under special examination. 



This being now a controversy between Governments, the ques- 

 tions submitted are to be decided according to the duty of the high 

 contracting parties toward each other, both having the x)urpose of 

 protecting aud preserving the fur seals. This duty arises out of the 

 treaty aud a community of purpose, as it is solemnly avowed; and 

 it is not admeasured by the international law, as would be the 

 case where a controversy existed that involved the ownership of the 

 seals, for instance, if they were claimed to belong to each Government, 

 and the tribunal was required to decide as to which of them has the 

 better title. 



The tribunal is intrusted with the power and has accepted the duty 

 of i^roviding for such concurrent action of the two Governments as 

 will protect and preserve the fur seals, when it shall determine that 

 the United States, in virtue of its own sovereign powers, and acting 

 alone, can not preserve them. 



If the decision of any of the questions in this case is made to depend 

 solely upon what is the declared international law, there could be no 

 need for asking other nations to accept and ratify the award. Their 

 acceptance of the award, as the correct ruling upon questions of inter- 

 national law, would simply amount to an affirmance of the legal propo- 

 sitions involved in it. All nations are bound by the international law, 

 and, to accept a decision of this tribunal, by convention, that is merely 

 in accordance with that law, would only be to agree to do that, by 

 treaty, which they are already bound to do under the international law 



It is because no one can say that the international Liav determines 

 these questions, that it is proposed hereafter to establish by treaty, 

 in which all the States are requested to concur, what is their duty in 

 giving protection to the fur seals. 



All property originat(>s in municipal law or recognition, and no prop- 

 erty is created, or defined, by international law. I admit the influence 

 properly to be exerted by the judicial decisions on analogous questions 

 by the courts of England and the United States, not as authority, but 

 as argument, or precedent. 



I understand that the right and duty of protecting fur seals against 

 indiscriminate slaughter is mu(;h more distin(;t and obligatory, than is 

 the right and duty of protecting animals that are less valuable and 

 are not i^laced so entirely within the dominion of man. 



