216 ARGUMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



Iii tlic printed Case submitted on behalf of the United States, a 

 claim is presented under the clause last quoted, for compensation to 

 the United States for the increased amount of rental which the United 

 States would have received upon an additional number of skins taken, 

 and for a bonus of $9.62^ on each skin, to be paid by the lessees of the 

 islands, over and above the bonus upon the 7,500 skins, which are per- 

 mitted to be taken under the Modus Vivendi.' 1 And a claim is also sub- 

 mitted bv the United States in behalf of its lessees for the profit the 

 lessees would have made upon an increased number of seals which 

 might have been take above the 7, 500 but for the Modus Vivendi. 2 



The Case also submits a claim in behalf of the United States and 

 lessees for compensation for the limited number of seals taken under 

 the Modus Vivendi of 1891. 



Frankness requires us, as we think, to say that the proofs, which ap- 

 pear in the Counter Case of the United States as to the condition of the 

 seal herd on the Pribilof islands, show that the United States could 

 not have allowed its lessees to have much, if any, exceeded the number 

 of skins allowed by the Modus Vivendi of 1892 without au undue dimi- 

 nution of the seal herd, and upon this branch of the case we simply 

 call the attention of the Tribunal to the proofs, and submit the ques- 

 tions to its decision. 



As to the claims submitted in behalf of the United States and its 

 lessees under the Modus Vivendi of 1891, the undersigned also feels con- 

 strained to say that, as no provision for the payment of compensation to 

 either party is provided for in that agreement, and as, under the laws of 

 the United States and lease of the islands by the United States to the 

 North American Commercial Company, the United States had the full 

 power, through its Secretary of the Treasury, to limit the catch in any 

 year to such number as in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treas- 

 ury might seem proper, we must admit that no right of compensation 

 accrued under that agreement to either the United States or its lessees, 

 for the reason that the agreement was wholly voluntary, and such as 

 the two governments were entirely competent to make, and no right to 

 compensation would accrue to either government or its citizens unless 

 specially provided for in the Modus Vivendi. 



> Case of the Uuited States, pp. 286-2S9. *Ihi<l, pp. 289 201. 



