ARTICLE II.

The two governments shall forbid their citizens and subjects respectively to kill, capture or pursue, in any manner whatever, during the season extending, each year, from the 1st of May to the 31st of July, both inclusive, the fur seals on the high sea, in the part of the Pacific Ocean, inclusive of the Behring Sea, which is situated to the north of the 35th degree of north latitude, and eastward of the 180th degree of longitude from Greenwich till it strikes the water boundary described in Article I of the treaty of 1867 between the United States and Russia, and following that line up to Behring Straits.

ARTICLE III.

During the period of time and in the waters in which the fur-seal fishing is allowed, only sailing vessels shall be permitted to carry on or take part in fur-seal fishing operations. They will however be at liberty to avail themselves of the use of such canoes or undecked boats, propelled by paddles, oars, or sails, as are in common use as fishing boats.

ARTICLE IV.

Each sailing vessel authorized to fish for fur seals must be provided with a special license issued for that purpose by its government and shall be required to carry a distinguishing flag to be prescribed by its government.

ARTICLE V.

The masters of the vessels engaged in fur-seal fishing shall enter accurately in their official log book the date and place of each fur seal fishing operation, and also the number and sex of the seals captured upon each day. These entries shall be communicated by each of the two governments to the other at the end of each fishing season.

ARTICLE VI.

The use of nets, fire arms and explosives shall be forbidden in the furseal fishing. This restriction shall not apply to shot guns when such fishing takes place outside of Behring's Sea, during the season when it may be lawfully carried on.

ARTICLE VII.

The two governments shall take measures to control the fitness of the men authorized to engage in fur seal fishing; these men shall have been

proved fit to handle with sufficient skill the weapons by means of which this fishing may be carried on.

ARTICLE VIII.

The regulations contained in the preceding articles shall not apply to Indians dwelling on the coasts of the territory of the United States or of Great Britain, and carrying on fur seal fishing in canoes or undecked boats not transported by or used in connection with other vessels and propelled wholly by paddles, ores or sails and manned by not more than five persons each in the way hitherto practised by the Indians, provided such Indians are not in the employment of other persons and provided that, when so hunting in canoes or undecked boats, they shall not hunt fur seals outside of territorial waters under contract for the delivery of the skins to any person.

This exception shall not be construed to affect the municipal law of either country, nor shall it extend to the waters of Behring Sea or the waters of the Aleutian Passes.

Nothing herein contained is intended to interfere with the employment of Indians as hunters or otherwise in connection with fur sealing vessels as heretofore.

ARTICLE IX.

The concurrent regulations hereby determined with a view to the protection and preservation of the fur seals, shall remain in force until they have been, in whole or in part, abolished, or modified by common agreement between the Governments of the United States and Great Britain.

The said concurrent regulations shall be submitted every five years to a new examination, so as to enable both interested governments to con sider whether, in the light of past experience, there is occasion for any modification thereof.

[Findings of fact with reference to seizures omitted.]

*

And whereas each and every question which has been considered by the tribunal has been determined by a majority of all the arbitrators. Now we, Baron de Courcel, Lord Hannen, Mr. Justice Harlan, Sir John Thompson, Senator Morgan, the Marquis Visconti Venosta, and Mr. Gregers Gram, the respective minorities not withdrawing their votes,

do declare this to be the final decision and award in writing of this tribunal in accordance with the treaty.

Made in duplicate at Paris and signed by us the fifteenth day of August in the year 1893.

And we do certify this English version thereof to be true and accurate.

ALPH. DE COURCEL

JOHN M. HARLAN

JOHN T. MORGAN

HANNEN

JNO. S. D. THOMPSON

VISCONTI VENOSTA

G. GRAM

Declarations made by the tribunal of arbitration and referred to the Governments of the United States and Great Britain for their consideration.

I.

The arbitrators declare that the concurrent regulations, as determined upon by the tribunal of arbitration, by virtue of Article VII of the treaty of the 29th of February 1892, being applicable to the high sea only, should, in their opinion, be supplemented by other regulations applicable within the limits of the sovereignty of each of the two Powers interested and to be settled by their common agreement.

II.

In view of the critical condition to which it appears certain that the race of fur-seals is now reduced in consequence of circumstances not fully known, the arbitrators think fit to recommend both governments to come to an understanding in order to prohibit any killing of fur-seals, either on land or at sea, for a period of two or three years, or at least one year, subject to such exceptions as the two governments might think proper to admit of.

Such a measure might be recurred to at occasional intervals if found beneficial.

III.

The arbitrators declare moreover that, in their opinion, the carrying out of the regulations determined upon by the tribunal of arbitration. should be assured by a system of stipulations and measures to be enacted

by the two Powers; and that the tribunal must, in consequence, leave it to the two Powers to decide upon the means for giving effect to the regulations determined upon by it.

We do certify this English version to be true and accurate and have signed the same at Paris this 15th day of August 1893.

BOOK REVIEWS

Britain and Sea Law. By T. Baty, D. C. L., LL.D. London: G. Bell and Sons. 1911. viii, 112 pp.

The above volume is a criticism of the Declaration of London, the underlying idea of which is apparently that maritime international law is usage, and that in vital matters British usage is the only sound usage. The author admits, it is true, that there is real dispute in certain minor matters, such as convoy, blockade, etc., and gracefully accords his approval to the settlements reached by the Declaration in these matters, for the reasons that "convoy has become a matter of minor importance," and that blockade "is rapidly becoming obsolete; " this notwithstanding the fact that the settlements in both cases involve departures from established British practice.

The author also recognizes a connection between blockade and the carriage of contraband, but fails to appreciate apparently that this connection is so intimate, that in all probability, no settlement of the question of blockade could have been reached independent of the settlement to be made at the same time with reference to contraband.

It would take too much time to follow in detail the author's criticisms of the articles of the Declaration relating to the destruction of neutral prizes, contraband, and continuous voyage. They convey to the writer, however, the impression that the author is firm in the conviction that here there is no real dispute. Ideas may differ, but the differences are apparent, not real. None but British ideas have ever been carried into practice, usage is the only basis of "Sea Law," British usage is the law, and is immutable.

The discussions at the Hague Conference of 1907, and at the London Conference of 1908, make it evident, however, that there is real dispute. in regard to these matters as well as in regard to the questions of convoy and blockade, unless, indeed, the author's contention that practice is the only basis of Sea Law, and that Sea Law is unchangeable, is accepted. Can this contention be admitted?

Recognizing, as one must, that British usage, as set forth in the able decisions of the British prize courts, has had a most important, if not dominant, influence in the development of international maritime law, must it not also be admitted that behind usage there are certain basic