ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 15 



I have accordin<ijly the honor to ask for iustructions iu referei)ce to tlie same. 



Meanwhile the Marquis of Salisbury promised to have jireijared a draft convention 

 for submission to the Russian embassador and to myself. I shall lose no time iu for- 

 warding you a copy of this document when received. 



I have omitted a paragraph in Mr. White's letter, that I shoukl have 

 read. At tlie bottom of page 179 he says: 



His lordship intimated furthermore that the period proposed by the United States 

 for a close time, April 15th to November Ist, nii^ht interfere with the trade lonj>er 

 than absolutely necessary for the protection of the seals, and he suggested October 

 1st, instead of a month later, as the termination of the period of seal protection. 



Then Mr. Bayard re]dies to Mr. White. The letter is on page 180 of 

 the same book, nnder date of May 1st, 1888. 



Your dispatch No. 725 of the 20th ultimo stating the result of your interview with 

 Lord Salisbury and the Russian ambassador relative to the protection of seals in 

 Behring Sea, and requesting further instructions as to their proposals, has been 

 received. 



As you have already been instructed, the Department does not object to the inclu- 

 sion of the sea of Okhotsk, or so much of it as may be necessary, in the arrangement 

 for the protection of the seals. Nor is it thought absolutely necessary to insist on 

 the extension of the close season till the 1st of November. 



Only such a period is desired as may be required for the end in view. But in order 

 that success may be assured in the efforts of the various Governments interested in 

 the protection of the seals, it seems advisable to take the 15th of October instead of 

 the 1st as the date of the close season, although, as I am now advised the Ist of 

 November would be safer. 



The suggestion made by Lord Salisbury that it may be necessary to bring other 

 Governments than the United States, Great Britain, and Russia into the arrange- 

 ment has already been met by the action of the Department, as I have hitherto 

 informed you. At the same time the invitation was sent to the British Government 

 to negotiate a convention for seal protection in Behring Sea, a like invitation was 

 extended to various other powers, which have without exception returned a favor- 

 able response. 



In order, therefore, that the plan may be carried out, the convention proposed 

 between the United States, Great Britain, and Russia should contain a clause pro- 

 viding for the subsequent adhesion of other powers. 



Mr. White then writes to Mr. Bayard on the 20th of June, 1888. It 

 is on page 181 : 



I have the honor to inform you that I availed myself of an early opportunity to 

 acquaint the Marquis of Salisbury and the Russian ambassador of the receipt of 

 your iustructions numbered 804, of May 3rd. 



(That is the last letter I read :) 



And shortly afterwards (May 16) His Excellency and I called together at the For- 

 ' eign Office for the purpose of discussing with his lordship the terms of the proposed 

 convention for the protection of seals in Behring Sea. Unfortunately Lord Salisbury 

 had just received a communication from the Canadian Government stating a memo- 

 randum on the subject would shortly be forwarded to London, and expressing a hope 

 that pending the arrival of that document no further steps would be taken in the 

 matter by Her Majesty's Government. 



Now I turn from this American evidence to some letters that are to 

 be found in the same third volume of the British Appendix from which 

 I have been reading before. I have shown the Tribunal (because I 

 attach so much importance to this that I think it ought to be clearly 

 perceived whether this was a misunderstanding or not), what view was 

 entertained in regard to it, and what was understood about it by the 

 American representatives in Loudon, and through them, by the Uuited 

 States Government at home. I refer to a letter from the Marquis of 

 Salisbury to Sir E. Morier and also to Sir Lionel West the British 

 Minister at Washington. Duplicates of this letter seem to have been 

 sent out, one to Sir Ilobert Morier and the other to Sir Lionel West. It 



