ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 269 



Mr. Carter. Oli yes; it was substantially identical with the clause 

 mentioned in the Treaty. 



Senator Morgan. Is it known at whose instance that sixth clanse 

 was made article VII of the Treaty? 



Mr. Carter. When they came to put the agreement for the arbitra- 

 tion and the agreement for the ai)pointment of the joint commission 

 into one document, which is the Treaty, then it became necessary to 

 make that change. Tlie consolidation of the two instruments made 

 that change necessary, as I supi^ose. 



Mr. Foster. The tirst five questions are in article VI of the Treaty, 

 and the matter of regulations, following, became article VII. 



The President. General Foster, perhaps yovi can tell us. There 

 was a remodeling of the Treaty after this ISth of December, I suppose? 



Mr. Foster. When the negotiators came to complete the Treaty, 

 they consolidated these two agreements; and in numbering the articles, 

 the first five questions became article VI of the Treaty, and the agree- 

 ment concerning regulations, following, became article VII of the 

 Treaty. It was simply an enumeration of the articles of the Treaty, 

 and that had become Article VII. 



The President. That was after December 18th ? 



Mr. Foster. Yes. 



The President. P>ut there was no substantial change in the text? 



Mr. Foster. There was no change whatever in the language, simply 

 a change in the numbering of the articles. 



Mr. Carter. I have read from documents showing what the inter- 

 pretation of Great Britain was in this particular. I now call attention 

 to a document showing the interpretation of the United States, and 

 that is in the appointment of the Commissioners under the Treaty, on 

 l)age 311 of the Case of the United States. The Commissioners there 

 refer to the letter of the Secretary of State appointing them: 



Sir: In your letter of July 10, 1891, received by us iu San Francisco on the IGtli, 

 after referring to the dipluinatic controversy ])eudinji; between the United States and 

 (4reat Britain in respect to the killing of fur-seals l)y British subjects and vessels, 

 to the causes which led up to this controversy, and to some of the propositions which 

 had at that date been mutually agreed upon, you inform us that the President has 

 been pleased to appoint ns to proceed to the Pribilof Islands and to make certain 

 investigations of the fixcts relative to seal life with a view to ascertaining what per- 

 manent measures are necessary for the preservation of the fur-seal in Behring Sea 

 and the North Pacific Ocean. 



The Tribunal here took a recess.] 

 "On reassembling, Mr. Carter resumed his argument.] 

 Mr. Carter. Another evidence, Mr. President, tending to show that 

 in the contemplation of the Treaty the regulations were not to be lim- 

 ited to Bering Sea, is found m the change of form of the sixth 

 question. As originally proposed it was in this language; I read fi'om 

 page 28G of the first volume of the Api^endix to the United States 

 Case: 



Sixth. If the determination of the foregoing questions shall leave the subject in 

 such position that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary in prescribing regu- 

 lations for the killing of the fur seal in any part of the waters of Behring Sea, then 

 it shall be further determined, etc., etc. 



You will observe there that the language of the regulation here pro- 

 posed is: "killing of the fur-seals in any part of the waters of Bering 

 Sea", giving some ground for a suggestion that the Eegulatious were 

 to be confined to Bering Sea; but, after the correspondcMiee which I 

 have referred to, and in which it w^as indicated upon both sides that 

 there was a necessity that the Regulations should extend outside Be- 



