COUNTER-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 141 



and if isuch protection involves injury to the existing legal 

 rights of Great Britain, the question must arise, as to the. 

 terms and conditions upon which such jprotection should be 

 afforded. 



Subject to the foregoing observations, the scheme and 

 scope of any Eegulations outside the jurisdictional limits 

 of the representative Governments might, it is submitted, 

 embrace the following subjects, or some of them: 



The maintenance of a zone of protected waters round the British cm- 

 breedi 1 1 g islai i ds. '^'Tf\V'-''', , /' ^" 



„, ^ . . ,. , port, §15o (/;), 



The jjrovision of a close season. ibid.,§i5o(c). 



Provision that no sealing- vessel shall enter Behring Sea 

 in each year before a given date. 



Prohibition of the use of rifles in shooting seals at sea. 



Prohibition of nets as a means of capture at sea. 



Provision that all sealing-vessels shall be licensed, and 

 sliall carry a distinctive flag. 



On the other hand, in order that Eegulations of this 

 nature, or any other Eegulations, may be eflective for the 

 proper preservation of*seal life, it is necessary, in the opin- 

 ion of Her JNIajesty's Government, that Eegulations should 

 be enforced by the United States ou the breeding-islands 

 dealing with the following subjects: 



Limitation of the number of seals to be killed in each 

 year, such limit to be subject to periodical review by inde- 

 pendent Government Agents, having regard to the actual 

 condition of the breeding-islands. 



Eflective provisions to prevent raiding and disturbance 

 upon the islands. 



And such subsidiary ])rovisions as may be considered 

 necessary for the eflective carrying out of these sug- 

 gestions. 

 165 In the United States Case, four proposals for "a United states 



limited prohibition" are separately discussed, and^'*®"'^^'^^^'"*'^' 

 each in turn is discarded as useless. By the term "limited 

 prohibition," it is probably intended to designate the "con- 

 current Eegulations" mentioned in the Treaty of Arbitra- 

 tion, but, as has already been shown, prohibition is not 

 regulation. 



The nmin argument of the United States is based on the 

 assumption (shown to be erroneous) that the decrease of 

 seals on or in the neighbourhood of the Pribylofl" Islands 

 is attributable entirely to pelagic sealing, and on the further 

 assumption that Eegulations should be framed in the sole 

 interest of the owners of the Pribylofl' Islands. 



It is shown in the Eeport of the British Commissioners British com- 

 that no single measure or precaution is in itself equally porCpara! 132" 

 appropriate to the several modes of taking seals, or sepa- 

 rately capable of aflbrding adequate safeguards in the 

 interests of seal life. But it is further shown that, by a 

 judicious combination of checks of various kinds, an efii- iwa., para. 137. 

 cient system of control may readily be established, so as to 

 embrace the whole industry based ui)on the taking of fur- 

 seals, and readily adaptable in its nature to varying circum- 

 stances. The method adopted in the Case of the United 

 States of discussing; and condemning separately certain 



