5 COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



Eussia prior and up to tbe time of the cession of Alaska, 

 the Government of the United States has a "right of pro- 

 tection and property in the fur-seals frequenting the Priby- 

 loif Islands when found outside the ordinary 3-niile limit"; 

 and it bases this right "upon the established principles of 

 the common and the civil law, upon the practice of nations, 

 upon the laws of natural history, and upon the common 

 interests of mankind." 



No arguments are adduced in the United States Case 

 based upon the first of these suggested grounds, viz., the 

 principles of the common and the civil law. But in this 

 Counter-Case, it is proposed in the first instance to deal 

 with the unprecedented nature of the claim, having regard 

 to those principles, and also to reply to the arguments 

 which are adduced, founded upon an alleged practice of 

 nations. This branch of the Case is treated in Chapter \^I. 

 The laws of natural history and the common interests of 

 mankind have, it is submitted, no bearing upon, or rele- 

 vance in connection with, the question as to the right of 

 protection or property claimed by the United States, to the 

 exclusion of other nations. But as the Government of Her 

 Britannic Majesty contend that the facts alleged as to the 

 natural history of seals, and as bearing upon the common 

 interests of mankind, are wholly, or, to a great extent, 

 inaccurate, these subjects are dealt with in the various 



sections of Chapter VII. 

 3 Il^has not been found necessary to make any addi- 



tional observations in reference to Chapters VI and 

 VII of the British Case : viz., the action of the United 

 States and Eussia from 1867 to 188G, and the various con- 

 tentions of the United States since the year 1886. 



The above subjects are treated of in Part I of this Coun- 

 ter-Case. 



The subject of the Eegulations (if any) which are neces- 

 sary, and the waters over which the Eegulations should 

 extend, referred to in Article VII of the Treaty, is consid- 

 ered in Part II. For reasons more explicitly stated in 

 correspondence which will be found in the Appendix, the 

 consideration of this point has been treated in this Counter- 

 Case, but only in deference to the Avish expressed by the 

 See Appendix, United States that arguments upon all the questions w^ith 

 voi.i,pp.itue</.^,jjjg]^ ^l^g Arbitrators may have to deal should be placed 

 before the Tribunal by means of the Case and Counter- 

 Case. The Government of Her Britannic Majesty have 

 adduced these arguments under protest, and without prej- 

 udice to their contention that the Arbitrators cannot enter 

 upon or consider the question of the proposed International 

 Eeguhitions until they have adjudicated upon the five 

 questions enumerated in Article VI, u])Ou which they are 

 by the terms of the Treaty required to give a distinct deci- 

 sion; and upon tlie determination of which alone depends 

 the question whether they shall enter upon the subject of 

 Eegulations. Her Majesty's Government reserve also their 

 right to adduce further evidence on this subject, should 

 the nature of the arguments contained in the Counter-Case 

 on behalf of the United States render such a course neces- 

 sary or expedient. 



