The scope of the convention in this case is defined and limited by the language of the convention itself and the documents, which, by its terms, are made a part of it by express reference and identification in its body. The international law of interpretation. applicable here neither requires nor permits any refer

ence to extraneous matter.

The claims referred to this Commission are thus unchangeably pointed out and definitely described in the convention, except only as to the amount of each claim. The names of the "persons" for whom, under Article I, Great Britain can claim compensation before this Commission are as unchangeably pointed out by the convention, except only as to them, so named as claimants by the convention, the United States are permitted, and that nation alone is permitted, by a specific provision, to inquire into their identity, in defense, as the actual owners of the vessels seized.

II.

As to compensation, the United States hold to the same attitude now that was announced by their counsel before the Paris Tribunal and has been consistently maintained before this High Commission, namely, that their liability having been fixed, the Government desires to pay compensation to Great Britain on account of all persons "in whose behalf Great Britain is entitled to claim compensation from the United States," and to pay that compensation at the earliest time when the proper amount can be ascertained.

Moreover, the United States want no compromise on the amount of compensation on values, and the amount of the injury inflicted by them for which they are responsible under the Paris award. They deprecate any such method of arriving at an award, especially under this convention, where the claim of each owner is to be found separately.

It can not but occur to anyone, however, when the amounts are compared for the same claims made up for the Paris Tribunal with those presented at the hearing in Victoria, and again when both are compared with the claims now presented in the argument, that the claimants do not share these views as to compromise.

The change of front at Victoria on the measure of recovery, the evidence of the padding, duplicating, and doubling of claims, the experience of other commissions and tribunals with like claimants, which are hereafter referred to, tend to demonstrate that the amounts are presented at such preposterous figures in order-if they are taken as a basis of calculation at all--that their reduction of half or more would still give a result out of all proportion to the truth.

III.

A foreigner permanently domiciled in the United States like the claimant Cooper, although unnaturalized, owes during the duration of his domicile allegiance to their Government, obedience to their municipal laws, and especially to their national assertion of what is variously termed dominion, sovereignty, or jurisdiction.

Non constat such a person may owe original allegiance to Great Britain, and non constat he puts his ships under a British flag and a British registry, he is still a resident of the United States, and so amenable to their laws and absolutely bound by their assertion of sovereignty.

Whatever questions there may be as to violations of national dignity, of the flag, and the ship (wholly questions of dignity between nations), in such case he is not a person who can enter any municipal court, much less an international commission on claims, and

set up that he is a person "in whose behalf Great Britain is entitled to claim compensation from the United States" for injuries which he has suffered in common with other civil citizens of the United States, no more amenable to their laws, for doing the same acts against the policy of the sovereignty and the laws of their common Government, for which they

have suffered.

Aside from questions having to do with the inviolability of the flag and of the deck, where, on the high seas, sovereignty is said to be present as upon its territory on land, there is no doubt by the authorities that this assertion in its extremest form is one entirely of national dignity, in respect of the sovereignty itself, as distinctly distinguished from the claim on account of the private ownership of a ship made by the same nation, in respect of a subject or citizen. In no court before has it been claimed that the immunity of the flag and of the deck from molestation by other nations on the high seas carried with it in courts of admiralty anywhere, or in any international court ever held, any exclusive presumption of private ownership.

On the contrary, in the courts of England as to foreign ships, and in the courts of every civilized nation, passing the question of national dignity, it is conclusively held that nationality follows ownership.

IV.

A citizen of the United States, wherever resident or domiciled, until he becomes naturalized in Great Britain, is still bound to his original allegiance to the United States in respect of—

(a) Their assertion of jurisdiction and sovereignty over territory or property.

(b) All municipal laws having an exterritorial effect.

The right of the nation to protect a domiciled person, even in time of war, much less in time of peace, has never been asserted in favor of such person as against his nation of citizenship for the consequences of his violation of the law of his country in time of peace, or his positive violation of his allegiance in time of war.

The maintenance of the rights of domicile in the history of international law, as will be seen, shows

(1) Frequent assertions of protection in time of peace against all other nations except the nation of original allegiance; and in the applicable principles laid down by the authorities this exception will always be found in terms.

(2) In war a person domiciled in a neutral country will be protected in his property and his person, even as against his own belligerant country, always provided he has not violated the law of his original allegiance and has not engaged in any hostile act against his country. In other words, to be protected by the Government of the neutral in such conditions, it must appear that he has maintained the status of the Government of his domicile as to neutrality.

By these well-settled doctrines of international law, by the treaty of Washington, the Paris award, and this convention, citizens of the United States, wherever domiciled or commorant, are not persons "in whose behalf Great Britain is entitled to claim compensation from the United States."

ར.

The law of "compensation" in cases of this kind is restitutio in integrum.

By the English and American law, and above all, by what must be taken in this tribunal as its authority in international law, in cases of precise analogy to

this, prospective profits and loss of catch can not be allowed to Great Britain by this Commission:

In any case (a) where the United States appropriated the vessel by seizure, or by ultimate proceedings relating back to the seizure; or (b) in any case of seizure where the United States ordered a release, if the release was not accepted, or if the facts disclosed an intention on the part of the claimants to abandon the property to the United States before the following season.

The theory and presumption must be applied in all such cases that the claimants had the means and could have supplied the place of the property seized at the time of seizure. In other words, the value of the property seized at the time of seizure is the only measure of compensation.

In the case of Warnings made by the United States. Government, and actual departure from the sea because of them, a liberal allowance must be made in the nature of the charter value for the balance of the sealing season in Bering Sea only. The rules applying here are in principle like those of demurrage, or like those applying in cases of partial loss. Practically, however, there are but two cases where the facts sustain any considerable claim as resulting from Warnings.

VI.

Claims for national injuries, distinguished from national claims made in behalf of subjects or citizens, viz, such as may arise from acts in derogation of the inviolability of the flag, the dignity of the sovereign, the respect due to the jurisdiction of the sovereign, and the like, committed on the high seas, or on that sovereign's territory, are not before this Commission. Under international law and by international precedent no nation has yet claimed to recover damages