10 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



itself. In the next place, it is contrary to those rules of law which are 

 estahlished by the municipal government of every civilized country on 

 earth for the protection of all wild animals that are of any value and, 

 to a certain extent, of those harmless wild animals that may be said to 

 be of no pecuniary value. In the third place, it is the destruction of 

 an important and valuable industry, long established and maintained by 

 the United States on the Islands, to which these seals are appurtenant; 

 to wliich they are attached; where they belong; where alone they may 

 be made the subject of any liusbandry that is not extermination. And, 

 finally, that this extermination of a race of animals, a race that have 

 not only their own right to live as long as they can live harmlessly, but 

 are a valuable race to mankind, to commerce, to trade, to an industry 

 supporting many people, is conduct that the freedom of the sea does 

 not embrace, and that no individual, whether he can make a profit out 

 of it or not, has a right to do upon any part of the high sea, an act of 

 that character, entailing such consequences. 



It is important before entering upon the discussion of the exact 

 question of legal right which I propose to address myself to, to consider 

 what has been up to the commencement of this trial the attitude of 

 these nations with respect to the question, not for the purpose of show- 

 ing, as my learned friends have attempted, that either side has laid 

 greater stress later on than they did in the beginning on particular 

 points — that is of no consequence — but to show Avhat in our judgment 

 is important to be understood and taken into account. 



I may briefly allude to the correspondence which has been read, 

 which I need not go over again. The. first thing was the seizure of 

 these vessels in 1886. It was followed by letters of inquiry from Great 

 Britain, later on by letters of remonstrance not at all upon the ground 

 of defending the vessels in what they were doing, but upon the question 

 whether whatever that conduct was they could be seized in the manner 

 in which they were seized and condemned by the United States Govern- 

 ment. Mr. Bayard's first letter in reply was one in which briefly, some- 

 what indirectly, but very distinctly, the general right of the United 

 States was affirmed. But he presently took a difl'ereut — perhaps not 

 a different — but a more desirable view. Experienced statesmen and 

 diplomatists do not need to be told how important it is for nations to 

 avoid the discussion of abstract questions as long as it can be avoided. 

 No good comes from it. It is not their business to enlarge the learning 

 of the world. It is not in their power to change the law of the world 

 except as between themselves, and therefoie, wise statesmen avoid ab- 

 stract discussion, and endeavour to meet the exigency of the particular 

 case. They prefer the precept of scripture. "Agree with thine adver- 

 sary quickly while thou art in the way with him, lest the adversary 

 deliver thee to the judge ". Mr. Bayard, a large minded far seeing man, 

 of that sagacity which is the sagacity of wisdom and not of cunning, 

 saw at once that instead of entering into the endless debate about the 

 extension of abstract principles to this case, it were far better for two 

 nations of the same race and blood, having a common interest and a 

 common law, to agree to settle this dispute, and to leave the abstrac- 

 tions to sucli future generations as should be unfortunate enough to be 

 obliged to settle them. Therefore leaving the question of right and 

 putting it aside, but not for a moment receding from it, his suggestion 

 was "Cannot we agree? You are as much influenced by the dictates 

 of humanity, and justice as we are: — Your interest is the same as ours. 

 You desire to do right as we do; let us agree." 



