192 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



which might be disappointed, made it the duty of the Tribunal, "if the 

 determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive jurisdic- 

 tion of the United States shall leave the subject in such a position that 

 the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the establishment of 

 regulations," etc., to proceed and "determine what concurrent regula- 

 tions outside the jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments 

 are necessary," etc. 



The first question which arises here is, what is the scope of the in- 

 quiry which the Tribunal is called upon to make? It is to deter- 

 mine what regulations consistent with the pursuit of pelagic sealing are 

 necessary! It is thus, or in any other way, limited in its inquiry? 

 It may be urged that we are at liberty to look into the diplomatic 

 communications which preceded the treaty and led to it, with the 

 view of more clearly ascertaining what the precise intent in this 

 and other respects was, and that, when these are taken into view, it 

 appears that all that the United States claimed was that the opera- 

 tions of the Canadian sealers should be placed under restrictions, such 

 as those afforded by a close time and prohibited areas. 



Ir is freely admitted that when suggestions were first made for the 

 settlement of questions growing out of the depredations of the Cana 

 dian sealers and the seizures of vessels employed for that purpose, it 

 was believed by the United States that the substantial enjoyment by 

 them of the rights acquired by their acquisition of Alaska; from Russia 

 might be secured, and the herds of seals protected sufficiently for 

 that purpose by some scheme of restriction in place or time, or both, 

 of pelagic scaling. And it is believed that the Government of Great 

 Britain at the same time supposed that such restrictions would suffice 

 for the preservation of the herd. 



But the whole subject was at that time novel and very imperfectly 

 understood in either country. The cause, pelagic sealing with its re- 

 sults, which gave rise to the complaints on each side was recent, and 

 had not assumed the proportions which it subsequently exhibited, nor 

 was the actual magnitude of it at that time known. Nor had the habits 

 of the seals, their migrations, and the places at which they might from 

 time to time be found, upon which the questions respecting rights of 

 property in them so much depend, been studied and fully ascertained. 

 The United States had, from the first, a conviction that their industry, 

 which came to them as a part of their acquisition from Russia, of cher- 

 ishing and protecting tuck seals upon the PribUof islands-, to the end 



