RELATING TO INTERPRETATION OF TREATY. 145 



event of the five points being decided unfavorably to the claim of the 

 United States. The sixth Article requires that a distinct decision shall 

 be given on each of these points, while the seventh Article provides 

 that "if the determination of the foregoing questions as to the exclusive 

 jurisdiction of the United States shall leave the subject in such position 

 that the concurrence of Great Britain is necessary to the establishment 

 of regulations for the proper protection and preservation of the fur- 

 seal in, or habitually resorting to, Behring Sea," the Arbitrators shall 

 then determine what concurrent regulations are necessary, and that 

 "to aid them in that determination, the report of a joint commission, 

 to be appointed by the respective governments shall be laid before 

 them, with such other evidence as either Government may submit." 



It will be noted that the seventh Article of the Treaty refers only to 

 the report of a joint commission, and it is by the ninth Article alone 

 provided that the joint and several reports and recommendations of 

 the Commissioners may be submitted to the Arbitrators, " should the 

 contingency therefor arise." 



The event, therefore, on the happening of which the report or reports 

 and further evidence are to be submitted is thus indicated by the 

 Treaty; that event being the determination of the five points sub- 

 mitted in the sixth Article unfavorably to the claim of the United 

 States, and so that the subject is left in such a position that the con- 

 currence of Great Britain is necessary for the purpose of establishing 

 proper regulations. 



It will be noticed further that the inquiries of the commissioners are 

 confined by articles vn and ix to the question of regulations, and have 

 no reference to the points raised by Article vi. 



it is clear, therefore, that by the Treaty it was intended that the 

 report or reports of the Commissioners should be produced, not as part 

 of the Case upon the questions stated in Article vi, but at a later stage, 

 and then only in the contingency above referred to. 



With regard to point 5 of Article vi, the Government of Her Britannic 

 Majesty, believing that the alleged "right of property or property 

 interest" depends upon questions of law, and not upon the habits of 

 seals and the incidents of seal life, have stated propositions of law which 

 in their opinion demonstrate that the claim of such right is not only 

 unprecedented, but untenable. These propositions will be found at 

 pages 135 to 140, 153 to 157, and propositions 15, 16, and 17, on page 160 

 of the Case of this Government. 



This being the view of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, it 

 would have been altogether inconsistent with it and indeed, as they 

 conceive, illogical and improper to have introduced into the British 

 Case matter which, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, can 

 only be legitimately used when the question of concurrent regulations 

 is under consideration. 



The Government of Her Britannic Majesty therefore reserved, and in 

 their opinion rightly reserved, until the time contemplated by articles 

 Vii and IX of the Treaty, the consideration of the question of concurrent 

 regulations should the contingency therefor arise, and Her Majesty's 

 Government protest against the introduction at this stage of facts 

 touching seal life, which they contend afford no support to the exclusive 

 rights claimed by the United States, which were the original cause and 

 formed the first object of this arbitration. 



With regard to the allegation that the United States will have no 



means of contradicting, limiting, or qualifying the proof and evidence 



adduced in the British Counter Case, the Government of the United 



States appear to have overlooked the provision of article VIJ, by which 



J2364—10 



