COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 135 



Chapter IV. — As regards the user of the waters in question from 1821 

 to 18G7— 



4. Tbat the conchisions claimed to have been established in tlie Brit- 

 ish Case, as stated at p. 90, are fully supported; and tbat the further 

 evidence which has been adduced clearly shows that, with tlu^ growth 

 of commerce and increase of trade subsequently to the year 18-! 1, ves- 

 sels of nations other than llussia, Avithout let or hindrance, frequented, 

 traded, and fished in the waters of Behring Sea; and that no attempt 

 was ever made during the whole period to restrict the use of those 

 waters to vessels carrying the liussian flag. 



Chapter V. — As regards the question what rights passed to the 

 United States under the Treaty of Cession of the 30th March, 

 1867— 



5. That the contentions of the United States are based upon two 

 assuTnptious, both of which are entirely erroneous. 



The first, that prior to the year 1807 Kussia had, in fact, excluded the 

 vessels of other nations from Behring Sea. 



The second, that the language of the Treaty of 1867 describes, and 

 puriDorts to convey, some special rights in the non-territorial waters of 

 Behring Sea. 



As to the first, the considerations contained in the first four Chap- 

 ters have established that, i)rior to 1807, Russia had not, at any time, 



excluded from Behring Sea the vessels of foreign nations. 

 157 As to the second, a reference to the language of the Treaty — 



which is set out at pi). 91 to 94 of the British Case — shows that 

 Eussia was conveying territories which were then admitted to form 

 part of the Russian EmiJire, but with no more than the ordinary terri- 

 torial rights. 



*te' 



Chapter VI. — As to the question whether the United States has any, 

 and if so, what right of protection or property in the fur-seals fre- 

 quenting the Islands of Behring Sea, when such seals are found 

 outside the ordinary 3-mile limit — 



(a.) That the authorities cited, and arguments brought forward, sup- 

 port the proposition that the sole right of the United States in respect 

 of the protection of seals is that incident to territorial possession, 

 including the right to prevent the subjects of other nations from fishing 

 in territorial waters. 



{b.) That the United States have not, nor has any citizen of the United 

 States, any property in fur-seals until they have been reduced into pos- 

 session; and that the i)roi)erty so acquired endures so long only as they 

 are retained in control. 



(('.) That an examination of the Colonial and foreign laws referred to 

 in the United States Case shows that international usage in no way 

 establishes, and in no instance sanctions, the principle asserted by the 

 United States, but, on the contrary, confirms the following propositions 

 at p. 100 of the British case: 



The riglit of the subjects of all nations to navifjate and fish in the non-territorial 

 "waters of the sea now known as Hehrinn' 8ea, remains and exists free and unfettert'd ; 

 and cannot be limited or interfered with, except with the concurrence of any nations 

 affected. 



No regulations affecting British subjects can be established for the protection and 

 preservation of the fur-seal in the u on- territorial waters of liehrin^ Sea without the 

 concurrence of Great Britain. 



