81 



killed on the seal islands. xViid this was tlie result despite tlie fact 

 that the modus vivoidl for that year was siguei^l on June 15. 



The modus viveudi for 181)2 was signed ou the 18th of April, befoie 

 the pelagic huutiug had occurred for that year. In both these agree- 

 ments of 1891, and of 18'J2, wliich were intended, in the first one, to 

 carry out the proposed treaty, and the treaty as agreed upon and 

 signed, in the second one, a prohibition of pelagic sealing was agreed 

 ux)on and enforced against the people of each Government. These 

 were "concurrent regulations," and tlic necessity for them was thus 

 admitted by both Governments. They were not extended to the North 

 Pacific, because the destructive effects of i^elagic hunting there were 

 not then known to the United States. 



Now, it is ascertained that the seal hunting in the oi)en ocean and 

 at the entrances to Bering Sea is even more destructive beyond the 

 jurisdictional limits of both countries than it ever was in Bering Sea. 

 These facts have been develojied since the cases of the jjarties were 

 delivered to the arbitrators. 



I am led to restate these facts in part and to repeat arguments I have 

 had the honor to submit upon jjrevious pliases of this discussion, because 

 of my earnest desire that the award of the tribunal should measure 

 uj) to the opportunities and demands of a great occasion and should 

 recommend itself to general acceptance by the civilized nations. 



The question stated in " point " five, of Article VI, of the treaty, re- 

 lates to the right of property and the right of protection of that jirop- 

 erty, which the tribunal may fully decide without touching the ques- 

 tion of the exclusive jurisdiction of Russia and the United States to 

 provide for the protection of that property, if the right to it is found to 

 exist. Those questions — "points" — as to the exclusive jurisdiction of 

 the United States arose out of claims that Russia is alleged to have 

 asserted and exercised "prior ami uj) to the cession of Alaska to tbe 

 United States," without reference to the question whether those claims 

 were well-founded in custom, in Jiatural or moral law, or in the law of 

 nations. 



The claim, or question, stated in point 5 of Article VI has a wholly 

 different foundation. It is a claim of "property in the fur seals fre- 

 quenting the islands of the United States in Bering Sea," and the cor- 

 relative right of protecting them when such seals are found "outside 

 of the ordinary three-mile limit," to the same extent that such right 

 11405 M 6 



