128 BULLETIN OF THE BUREAU OF FISHERIES. 
On the question of ownership in the migrating seals, the decision of the 
arbitrators in the tribunal, by a majority of five against two, was that ‘‘ the United 
States has not any right of protection or property in the fur seals frequenting 
the islands of the United States in Bering Sea, when such seals are found out- 
side the ordinary 3-mile limit.’ As provided for in this event, a system of 
regulations was formulated for the protection of the herd outside the juris- 
dictional limits, to be enforced jointly by the two nations, the cruisers of each 
of the two powers being authorized to visit, search, and arrest all violators,* but 
a seized vessel must be conveyed to a harbor of her home state and turned over 
to the authorities there for trial. 
These regulations provided for a suspension of all pelagic sealing in Bering 
Sea in May, June, and July, which covers the breeding season; and they 
interdicted sealing at any time within a zone of 60 geographical miles around 
the Pribilof Islands, which was supposed to cover practically the feeding ground 
of the mother while her young is dependent on her for nourishment. Licensed 
sailing vessels only were permitted to engage in the fishery, and the use of nets, 
firearms, and explosives was interdicted. These regulations were to remain in 
force until abolished by mutual agreement, but were to be examined every five 
years with a view to modification.” 
For executing these regulations, an act was approved in the United States 
on April 6, 1894,° and a similar act was passed by Parliament? on the 23d day 
of the same month. Other maritime powers were asked by the United States 
to submit voluntarily to the regulations made by the arbitrators, but only Italy 
has agreed to this* and all other nations remain free to engage in pelagic sealing 
at any time without regard to the closed season mentioned in the award. But 
as the fishery was then practiced almost wholly by vessels flying either the 
Canadian or the American flag, it was virtually subject to the regulations of the 
Paris tribunal. 
In 1894 these regulations were enforced by the two interested Governments 
among their respective subjects, the United States spending over $500,000 in 
maintaining its patrol. But notwithstanding this protection, the pelagic catch 
of fur seals exceeded that of any preceding year, amounting to 61,838, as com- 
@ This is one of the three instances in which the United States has consented to a departure from 
its stoutly maintained policy of freedom of its merchantmen from search by foreign cruisers in time 
of peace, the successful advocacy of which forms one of the most glorious records in American history. 
b These regulations are given in detail in Appendix G (page 173 of this paper). 
¢ 28 Stat. L., 52. 
4 Foreign Relations, 1894, App. I, p. 107-233. 
€ Martens, Nouveau Recueil General de Traites, 2d series, xxm, p. 565. 
f France and Portugal signified their willingness but do not appear to have executed the regulations. 
The Government of Denmark declined to adopt them on the ground that no vessels of that nation were 
engaged in sealing in those waters. Japan declined to enforce them among its vessels unless similar 
protection should be given to the Japanese fur-seal fisheries. And Russia consented to adhere to the 
regulations only on condition that they be extended to the whole of the Pacific Ocean north of the 
thirty-fifth degree of latitude. (Moore, Digest of International Law, p. 922-923.) 
