8 ORAT. ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



It is held by tlic GovernmnTit of Cnnnrla, on evidence wliicli they deem snfficient, 

 that no real danger exists of the extermination of the seal fishery in Bclning's Sea. 

 They therefore contend that, if the United States Government are not of that opinion, 

 that (Joverninent should make the pru[)()sals which they consi(hir necessary for the 

 protection of the s])ecies. If, however, the renewal of negotiations is considered 

 expedient by Her Majesty's Government, Canada will agree to that course on the 

 following conditions: 



If this formed an important chapter in the history of G-reat Britain, 

 the future historian miulit enquire which was the Empire and which was 

 the Province. Canada graciously informs Her Majesty's Government 

 upon what terms she will agree to negotiations with the United States, 

 one of which is, 



that the United States Government shall first abandon any claim to regard the 

 Behring's Sea as a mare clanaum, and that any existing legislation in the United 

 States, which would seem to support that claim, shall be either amended or repealed. 



Some other conditions are added which I will not stop to read; and 

 Sir Julian Pauucefote writes in reply : 



Immediately on the receipt of yonr Lordship's telegram of the 7th instant, con- 

 taining certain proposals of the Dominion Government in relation to the Behring's 

 Sea question and instructing me to report whether, in my o]>inion, those pro{)osal8 

 furnished a liasis of possible negotiation, I obtained an interview with Mr. Blaine 

 and I sounded him on the subject of Canada being directly represented in any dii)lo- 

 matic negotiations which might be renewed for the settlement of the controversy. 

 Mr. Blaine at once expressed his absolute objection to such a course. He said the 

 qnestion was one between Great Britain and the United States, and that his Govern- 

 ment would certainly refuse to negotiate with the Imperial and Dominion Govern- 

 ments jointly, or with Great Britain, with the condition that the conclusions arrived 

 at should be subject to the approval of Canada. 



I did not touch on the other proposals for the following reasons. 



As regards the abandonment of the mare clansnm claim, no such claim having been 

 officially asserted by the Unite:! States Government, they would naturally object to 

 withdraw it; and as regards the suggested amendment of their legislation, such a 

 proposal would gravely embitter the controversy, and is hardly necessary, as I con- 

 ceive that there is nothing in the terms of such legislation, if correctly interpreted, 

 with due regard to international law, which supports the mare clausiim claim. 



With those citations, Sir, I leave upon the argument of my learned 

 friend, Mr. Carter, the question, utterly immaterial I repeat, whether 

 the ground we have placed this case upon was or was not the original 

 ground asserted by the United States. I need not remind you, that 

 this subject engaged the attention of the previous adniinistratioii to 

 that with which Mr. Blaine was connected, when the United States 

 began by seizing the sealing vessels in two successive years, and that 

 Mr. Bayard, the former Secretary of State absolutely declined to enter 

 into the discussion of these Russian questions. They we^-e introduced, 

 in the lirst place, by the Earl of Iddesleigli when Foreign Secretary of 

 Great Britain, in a letter through Sir Lionel West, then British Min- 

 ister, which elicited no reply except a courteous acknowledgment of its 

 receipt. Then they were brought forward again by Lord Salisbury in 

 another letter during Mr. Bayard's administration. And my learned 

 friend, the Attorney General very much complained that it met with 

 no res]ionse. On two occasions, in two successive Administrations, 

 through two Secretaries of Foreign Affairs on one side and two Secre- 

 taries of State on the other, it was attempted on the part of Great 

 Britain to carry this controversy into the held of old diplomatic diffi- 

 culties between Russia ami the United States, and Russia and Great 

 Britain. The United States declined to discuss it, and, as has been 

 pointed out — I shall not go over it again — always asserted through Mr. 

 Bayard, as well as through Mr. Hlaine, the proposition I have stated. 



It is true that Mr. Blaine was afterwanls drawn by the great adroit- 

 ness of Lord Salisbury — a diplomat of very great ability, sagacity and 



