ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 11 



He made that proposal not only to Great Britain but to Eussia and 

 Japan, who are interested in tlie matter of the seals, and to various other 

 nations who are not. I need not read again the letter he addressed to 

 M. Vignaud, the Secretary of Legation in Paris, and which in the 

 same words was sent to the other American Ministers, projiosing tliat 

 in this work of humanity and justice all should concur, and waive the 

 questioH of the United States to assert itself in its own defense. 



I wish to read one letter not before read, from Mr. Lothrop, a very 

 able American lawyer then Minister of the United States, at St. Peters- 

 burgh, addressed to the Secretary of State in resi)onse to this com- 

 munication. It is to be found in the first volume of the United States 

 Appendix, page 192, and is dated December 8th 1887. 



Sir, I have the honor to transmit herewith the translation of a note from the 

 Foreign OflSce, received at the legation yesterday, on the proposition of the United 

 States for an international agreement tonching the capture of seals in Behring Sea. 

 The earnestness felt here in the matter is plainly indicated by the language of the 

 note, which speaks of unrestrained seal-hunting as a thing which not only threatens 

 the wellbeing hut even the existence of the people of the extreme north-east coast. 



This language represents a view which I have heard here in conversation, of 

 course not officially, and which is substantially as follows: 



The seal tishery on our Behring coasts is the only resource our people there have; 

 it furnishes all the necessaries of life; without it they perish. Now, international 

 law concedes to every people exclusive jurisdicfciou over a zone along its coasts 

 sufficient, for its protection; and the doctrine of the equal rights of all nations on 

 the high seas rests on the idea that it is consistent with the coninion welfare and not 

 destructive of any essential rights of inhabitants of the neighboring coasts. 



Such common rights, under public law, rest on general consent, and it would be 

 absurd to affirm that such consent had been given where its necessary result would 

 be the absolute destruction of one or more of the parties. Hence the rule cannot be 

 applied blindly to an unibreseen case, and these alleged common rights must right- 

 fully be limited to cases where they may be exerciseil consistently with the welfare 

 of all. Behring Sea partakes largely of the character of an inclosed sea; two great 

 nations own and control all its inclosing shores. It possesses a peculiar fishery, 

 which, with reference to its preservation, can only be legitimately pursued on laud, 

 and even there only under strict regulations. To allow its unrestrained pursuit in 

 the open waters of the sea is not only to doom it to annihilation, but, by necessary 

 consequence, to destroy all its coast inhabitants. If this result is conceded it fol- 

 lows that the doctrine of common rights can have no application to such a case. 



I have thought it might not be uninteresting to give this as a view which has 

 found expression here, and, if found necessary, I think it not improbable that Rus- 

 sia would feel that she was driven to act on it. 



The note of Mr. de Giers is enclosed by Mr. Lothrop in this commu- 

 nication. I will read it. It is very brief. 



Mr. Minister. — Mr. Wurts, under date of August 22 (September 2), was good enough 

 to communicate to me the views of the Government of the United States of America 

 upon the subject of the desirableness of an understanding, among the governments 

 concerned, for the regulation of the taking (la chasse) of the fur-seal (loutrcs) in the 

 Behring Sea, in order that an end might be put to those inconsiderate practices of 

 extermination which threaten to dry up, at their source an important branch of 

 international commerce. 



We concur entirely in the views of the Government of the United States. Like it 

 we also have been for a long time considering what means could be taken to remedy 

 a state of things which is prejudicial not only to commerce and to revenue, but 

 which will soon work disastrous results, not only to the well-being but even to the 

 existence of our people in the extreme Northeast. The establishment of a reasonable 

 rule, and of a lawful sys'em in the use {rexploilniion) ot the resources, whichfurnish 

 their only industry, is for those people of vital importance. 



The pressing interest which the Imperial Government has been thus called to con- 

 sider had already suggested to it the idea of an international agreement, by which 

 this interest might fiiul its most efficient protection. It is by this way that the dif- 

 ferent questions involved can be best resolved, and among which there exists, in our 

 opinion, a close connection. 



It was after the writing of that letter of Mr. Bayard's to Mr. Vignaud, 

 certainly before it was received at the Foreign ollice of Great Britain, 

 that the letter I have before alluded to from Lord Salisbury came, in 



