COUNTER-CASE PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF HER 

 BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT TO THE 

 TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION. 



PRELIMINARY STATEMENT. 



A preliminary statement as to the general scheme and 

 construction of the following Oonnter-Case may be of assist- 

 ance in its perusal. 



For convenience of reference, and in the interests of brev- 

 ity, it has been found desirable in framing the Counter-Case 

 to follow the arrangement which was adopted in the British 

 Case; as, on perusal of the United States Case, it was 

 observed that the arrangement of the argument contained 

 in the First Part of that Case, namely, that relating to his- 

 torical and jurisdictional questions, corresponded in a gen- 

 eral way w ith the sub-division of chapters adopted in the 

 British Case. In the following Counter-Case, therefore, 

 there has been placed at the head of each chapter the head- 

 ing which will be found for the corresponding chapter in 

 the British Case. But inasmuch as the propositions relat- 

 ing to each point appear in the United States Case not 

 unfrequently in more than one passage, theref have been 

 added to each heading citations from the United States 

 Case of the propositions put forward in argument on behalf 

 of the United States bearing upon the subject, with a ref- 

 erence to the page of the United States Case from which 

 such citations are taken. In addition there has been placed 

 immediately following, at the head of each chapter, a brief 

 summary of the arguments in reply which are advanced on 

 behalf of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty. 



Repetition of the points made in the British Case has, as 

 far as possible, been avoided ; though the reply to the United 

 States Case involves, of necessity, in some cases, reference 

 to arguments which had already been urged on behalf of 



Great Britain. 

 2 Marginal references to the corresponding passages 



in the British Case are given. 



The first four points submitted in Article YI of the Treaty 

 of the 29th February, 1892, are first dealt with under the 

 various heads above referred to in Chapters I to V. 



The fifth question of Article Vi, viz. : — "Has the United 

 States any right, and, if so, what right, of protection or 

 property in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the 

 United States in Behring Sea when such seals are found 

 outside the ordinary 3-mile limit?" has been so treated in 

 the United States Case, that in preparing this Counter-Case 

 a somewhat different course to that pursued in relation to 

 the first four questions has been rendered necessary. It 

 will be observed that on page 85 of the United States Case, 

 it is asserted that, quite independently of the jurisdiction 

 over Behring Sea, which was established or exercised by 



