Question: Resolved, That the United States ought to receive the award in the approaching arbitration on the Bering Sea question.

Brief for the affirmative.A. S. APSEY and W. H. DAVIS.

Best general references: Stanton, Behring Sea Controversy, ch. IX; Amer. Hist. Leaflet, No. 6. Letters of Mr. Blaine, Foreign Rel., 1890. pp. 437, 477; Correspondence between the U S. and Great Britain, Bering Sea, 24 93; E. J. Phelps, Harp. Mag. LXXXII, 766, (Apr. 1891); H. H. Bancroft's Alaska ch. XXI; Wharton, Internat. Law, I pp. 70, 109, 113; Welling, B. S. Arbitration, 10.

I. The real question is has the U. S. a right to protect the seals outside the three mile limit?; Am. L'f't, 26.

II. Exclusive jurisdiction over large bodies of water is not uncommon, e. g. Ceylon, pearl fisheries, fisheries off the north of Scotland, St. Helena, etc.; Am. Hist. L'f't, 17,23; Behring Sea, 24; Wharton, Inter. Law pp. 70, 109, 113.

III. The U. S. has a special right to exclusive jurisdiction over Behring Sea. - (a) Ruasia had such a right before 1867. - (1)She claimed the right: Am. Hist. L f't, 4-6-(2) The U.S. and Great Britain admitted the claim: Am. Hist. L'f't, 8-10; Sec'y Blaine, For. Rel., 1890. pp. 437. 477. - (b) Russia transferred her rights unimpaired to the U. S.; E. J. Phelps. Harp. Mag. LXXXII, 766; Treaty of 1807. Am. Hist. L'f't, 10. 11.

IV. There are special reasons for the interest of the U. S. in the seal fisheries in Behring Sea. - (a) Immediate action by U. S. is necessary to prevent extermination of seals: U. S. Doc. House Report p. 3883, 2nd Ses. 50th Cong.; Bancroft's Alaska, ch. XXI; Behring Sea, 93; Am, Hist L'f't, 16, 17. - (b) A nation's first duty is to maintain the existence of its inhabitants, and a large number of the inhabitants would starve if Gov. did not protect seal fisheries: Hall, 42; Fur Seal Fisheries of Alaska, 6-7; B. S. Con., 90. - (c)Parallel of the Newfoundland Banks' fisheries: Blaine, For. Rel. 1890, 369.

Brief for the Negative.R. C. LARRABEE AND W. J. H. Strong.

Best general references: American Hist. Leaflets, No. 6; Stanton, Behring Sea Controversy; Yale Review, I, 162-166 (Aug., 1892); Forum VIII, 224-236 (Nov., 1889); Atlantic Monthly, LXV, 178-186 (Feb., 1890); Wharton, Digest of the International Law of the U. S. pp. 26-32, 300-308, 327; U. S. Documents Behring Sea, 2 vols. (correspondence); Robert Rayner, Answer to the Hon. E. J. Phelps's Paper on the Behring Sea Controversy.

I. The claims of the U. S. violate the principle of mare liberum: Atlantic Monthly LXV. 184.- (a) Behring Sea not an enclosed sea: Forum VIII, 231; Stanton supra. - (1) Size: Forum. VIII, 231. - (2) Width of the entrance: Atlantic Monthly LXV, 185. - (3) Shores owned by two nations: Stanton supra 76. - (b) Canadian vessels have been seized outside the marginal belt: Atlantic Monthly LXV, 184; Stanton supra, Chap. 1.

II. The action of the U. S. is without modern procedent. - (a) Contrary to our own former position: Atlantic Monthly, LXV, 183; Stanton, Chap. X. - (b) Unlike claims made by other nations: Stanton, Chap. IV. - (c) Not comparable to - (1) Suppression of privacy or slave trade; Am. Hist. Leaflets, No. 6, 18. - (2) Protection of poor fishermen: Forum VIII. 232.

III. U. S. received no exclusive jurisdiction from Russia - (a) Russia did not formally assert or exercise such rights over the whole of Behring Sea: Stanton, 30-31 - (b) Russia's claims not recognized by - (1) U. S.: Stanton, 34, -(2) England: U. S. Doc., Behring Sea, 1892, pp. 17-18, - (3) Abrograted by treaties of 1824-25: Stanton, 36-37 - (c) Behring Sea part of the Pacific Ocean; Stanton; 35-39. - (D0 Russia's alleged "rights by nature" not transferable: Stanton, 54.

IV. The United States would be benefited by the loss of the care. - (a) Gains goodwill and cooperation of other nations: Am. Hist. Leaflets. No. 6, p. 26. - (b) A less pretentious foreign policy encouraged: Boston Herald, Feb. 4, 1892, p. 8; Yale Review, I, p. 162.