ORAL ARGUMENT OF .TAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 73 



those questions wliicli are properly called by my learned friend Sir 

 Charles "questions of right", should leave the subject in a condition 

 where the concurrence of Great Britain was necessary to the establish- 

 ment of regulations for the preservation of the fur-seal, the arbitrators 

 shoukl consider what regulations were necessary. 



The President. In that contingency"? 



Mr. Carter. In that "contingency", yes; and only in that contin- 

 gency. The duty of the arbitrators is most plainly specified here as to 

 what they are to do, and the times at which they are to do it. The 

 question of what evidence they are to act upon, and when that is to be 

 submitted, has heretofore been argued ; and I shall say nothing further 

 about it. 



When the parties were brought to a substantial agreement upon 

 these points, the agreement for the arbitration and the agreement for 

 the mixed commission of experts, were drawn up separately and signed 

 se])arately on the 18th of December, 1891; and, in accordance with the 

 design of settling the matters by a convention upon the basis of a joint 

 report, the Commissioners were at once appointed on the part of Great 

 Britain and proceeded to Bering Sea for the purpose of making their 

 investigations long Itefore the treaty was finally drawn up and signed; 

 but in February, 1892, these two agreements, thus far kept separate, were 

 finally consolidated in the treaty, and the treaty was signed and ratified. 



That concludes the second star/e of the controversy. 



In a word or two, allow me to recapitulate the princi])al features of this 

 second stage of the controversy. It opens with the acts of the admin- 

 istration of President Harrison; proclamations designed to prohibit 

 pelagic sealing, instructions to cruisers to enforce the law; seizure of 

 British vessels and consequent renewal of protests by Great Britain. 

 Next the consideration by President Harrison and his Secretary of 

 State, Mr. Blaine, of the grounds upon which the United States 

 defended their action in making these seizures upon Bering Sea, and 

 the setting forth of those grounds in their full extent. The next stej) 

 in this stage was a renewal of the negotiation for a settlement between 

 the two Governments, the proposal by Sir Julian of a draft convention, 

 which contained the germ of a qualified and limited arbitration; next 

 the answer of Lord Salisbury to the arguments upon which Mr. Blaine 

 had defended the conduct of the United States, and an attempt by 

 him, as I have. styled it, — perhaps that will not be agreed to by my 

 learned friends on the other side — bnt an attempt, as I think, to avoid 

 a discussion of the grounds upon which Mr. Blaine had undertaken to 

 defend the position of the United States; next the introduction of this 

 mattter of Eiissian pretensions in Bering Sea; the Ukase of 1821; the 

 treaties of 1821 and 1825; and the question of what was meant by, and 

 how mtich was included by, the phrase "Pacific Ocean", as it is used in 

 both those treaties. Next tlie carrying forward of the proposal for arbi- 

 tration and the reduction of the suggestion of a joint commission to 

 distinct points, and an agreement in reference to tliem; and, last, a 

 consolidation of the agreements into the treaty, creating this arbitra- 

 tion; the signing of that treaty, and its ratification by both powers. 



There is still another stage, but it is a very short one and briefly 

 told. That is the third stage of the controversy, and has reference to 

 theaction of the tw.o Governments under the treaty. The Commissioners 

 were appointed upon both sides. They visited Bering Sea. They 

 examined the condition of the rookeries there. They made such inves- 

 tigations as they chose to make, and were able to make, concerning 

 seal life. They, or some of them — the British Commissioners, at least-^ 



