RELATING TO INTERPRETATION OP TREATY. 149 



determination upon the five special questions adverse to the contention 

 of the United States. A communication from Mr. Blaine, one of the 

 negotiators, is appended hereto showing the circumstances under which 

 the antecedent agreement was made. It is believed that Sir Julian 

 Pauncefote, the negotiator on the part of Her Majesty's Government, 

 will not dissent from this statement. 



Por the above reasons I can not concur in the reasoning of Lord Rose- 

 bery based upon a special consideration of the language of particular 

 clauses of the Treaty. If his interpretation of the Treaty is correct, the 

 whole matter of the submission of evidence and of argument as to mat- 

 ters affecting the question of regulations is, as I have already sug- 

 gested, left without any prescription of methods or limitations as to 

 time. In view of the care taken in these particulars in the Treaty as to 

 the Case and Counter Case and argument, it is not to be supposed that 

 such an omission would have occurred. The provisions made were 

 plainly intended to cover all matters submitted. I am clearly of the 

 opinion that the clauses cited by Lord Rosebery, when properly ex- 

 amined in connection with the circumstances under which they were 

 framed, contain nothing inconsistent with the plain general intention of 

 the Treaty to secure to each party an opportunity to meet and overcome 

 the allegations and proofs of his adversary upon disputed questions of 

 fact; and even if these clauses should seem to contain matter furnishing 

 some support to the views expressed by Lord Rosebery, a familiar rule 

 of law would require us to subordinate the inference they may suggest 

 to the main purpose of the parties. 



It is a matter of frequent occurrence where agreements come before 

 judicial tribunals for interpretation that incongruities are found between 

 those parts of a writiug which express the main purpose of its framers 

 and those which relate to subordinate details. Such incongruities are 

 always disposed of by a reconciling construction which secures the 

 main object which the parties had in view. 



I entirely agree to the observation of Lord Rosebery to the effect 

 that the right of property in fur-seals depends upon questions of law; 

 but I conceive that the precise questions of law can not be known, and 

 can not therefore be determined, until the facts out of which they arise 

 are known ; and I can not concur with Lord Rosebery in the view 

 which appears to be entertained by him that the facts concerning the 

 nature and habits of fur-seals and the modes by which their increase 

 may be made subservient to the uses of man without endangering the 

 existence of the stock, are not pertinent to the claim of the United 

 States to a property interest. On the contrary I regard these facts as 

 in the highest degree important. 



Having thus expressed the views entertained by the Government of 

 the United States upon the argument of Lord Rosebery in support of 

 his interpretation of the Treaty, it remains for me to add that I am in- 

 structed by the President to say that he appreciates the spirit of equity 

 and liberality in which Lord Rosebery, while insisting upon his own 

 interpretation, practically, to some extent at least, and I hope fully, 

 yields to the Government of the United States the benefit of its inter- 

 pretation, by furnishing to the latter the separate Report of Her 

 Majesty's Commissioners, with the permission that the same be treated 

 as part of the original Case on the part of Great Britain. If, as I be- 

 lieve and assume, this Report contains substantially all the matter 

 which Her Majesty's Government will rely upon to support its conten- 

 tions in respect to the nature and habits of fur-seals and the modes of 



