CONCURRENT REGULATIONS. 191 



The reasons for leaving the consideration of concurrent regulations 

 thus broadly open are manifest. In all judicial controversies, except 

 such as plainly involve nothing more than the question of the right to 

 a money payment, the particular relief which may be best suited to the 

 exigency of the case can never be accurately perceived until all the 

 rights, both principal and incidental, are ascertained; and, conse- 

 quently, the character and extent of the relief are left to be determined 

 along with, or subsequent to, the determination of the merits of the 

 case. This was especially true of the present controversy in the form 

 which it assumed at the time of the Treaty. The questions at that time 

 had received a diplomatic treatment only. This disclosed that several 

 novel legal questions were involved concerning which the high contract- 

 ing parties were not agreed. But they were agreed that, whatever 

 might be the true solution of such questions, there was one object ex- 

 tremely desirable to both, namely, that the fur-seals should be preserved 

 from the peril of extermination. If it were determined that the United 

 States had no property interest in the seals, and no exclusive jurisdiction 

 in Bering Sea, concurrent regulations would certainly be necessary. 

 And if it were determined that they had no property interest, but had the 

 exclusivejurisdiction, it might yet be that the inadequacy of a protection, 

 however efficiently exerted, which would be limited to these waters, 

 would still render concurrent regulations necessary to complete protec- 

 tion. And, even if it were determined that they had both the requisite 

 jurisdiction and the property interest, there might be a question con- 

 cerning the action which they might take to protect such interest in 

 the Pacific Ocean, south of Bering Sea. Satisfactory conclusions upon 

 all these questions could only be had by an attentive examination, aided 

 by a full production of proofs, not only of the questions of right, but 

 also of the whole subject of sealing, and of the practical measures 

 which might be requisite to assure the protection which both parties 

 agreed to be supremely desirable. The single event which appeal's to 

 have been regarded as possibly rendering it unnecessary to consider the 

 question of concurrent regulations was a determination that the United 

 States possessed the exclusive jurisdiction in or over some part of 

 Bering Sea. A protection enforced by the United States in the exer- 

 cise of such an authority might be sufficiently effective for the agreed 

 purpose of preservation, and render any concurrent action on the part 

 of Great Britain unnecessary; but this was uncertain. Hence the lan- 

 guage of the Treaty, carefully shaped so as not to attempt anticipations 



