138 COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



To enforce Regulations which would shut out British sub- 

 jects at certaiu seasons, and from prescribed areas, from 

 the pursuit of jielagic sealing, and at the same time would 

 leave the slaughter of seals on the islands to be pursued 

 according to the mere Avill of the lessees of those islands 

 or of their Governuieut, would be to establish liegulations 

 one-sided in their character, and, therefore, unjust and 

 also ineffective for the object in view, namely, the preser- 

 vation of seal life. 



It will be shown later, that the action of the lessees upon 

 the islands, both as to times, methods, and extent of slaugh- 

 ter, has heretofore exercised a more serious effect in caus- 

 ing the diminution of seals in Behring Sea than the pelagic 

 sealing. 



It is submitted, therefore, that no Regulations applying 

 to pelagic sealing only ought to be formulated unless and 

 until the United States of America have established proper 

 and effective Regulations applicable to the islands 



Otherwise, the result would be that the Regulations 

 would restrict pelagic sealing by British subjects, for the 

 benefit of the United States, whilst leaving the action of 

 their nationals in territorial waters and on the islands with- 

 out control. 



But it further follows that any Regulations, to be at once 

 just and effective, must bind all who have the right to 

 resort to Behring Sea in pursuit of fur-seals. 



According to the express terms of the Vlltli Article of 

 the Treaty, the authority of the Arbitrators as to concur- 

 rent Regulations is confined to Regulations outside the 

 jurisdictional limits of the respective Governments of Great 

 Britain and the United States of America. 



It is clear that such Regulations would require domestic 

 legislation by Great Britian and the United States respec- 

 tively to make them binding even on their respective 

 nationals, but that domestic legislation by Great Britain 

 could not bind the nationals of the United States of 

 161 America, neither could legislation by the United 

 States of America bind the nationals of Great 

 Britain. 



Equally obvious is it that the legislation of neither coun- 

 try could bind the subjects of any other country. 



It would therefore be open to the nationals of Chile, Ger- 

 many, Holland, Japan, Russia, or of any other Power, to 

 disregard any Regulations made; and if tUeir convenience 

 and interest pointed in that direction, to pursue the fur- 

 seal fishing industry at times when, and in a manner and 

 under circumstances in which, the like pursuit would be 

 forbidden to the nationals of Great Britain and of the 

 United States of Afnerica respectively. 



It may be anticipated also that owners of both United 

 States and Canadian sealing-vessels would sail their ves- 

 sels under the flag of some other nation, so as to obtain 

 immunity from such Regulations. 



These results, it will be admitted, have not been contem- 

 plated by either of the two great Powers parties to the 

 Treaty, nor would they be conducive to their respective 

 interests. 



