28 ORAL ARGUMENT OP HON EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



point on which the British Government never expressed itself — it said, 

 " we will refer tliat to a Commission". 



In Sir Julian's l(y,ter of April 30th 1890 in the same volume from 

 which 1 have been reading at page 205 he says: 



The great di verjrence of views which exist as to whether any restrictions on pehagic 

 eealinii; are necessary for the preservation of the fur spt cies, and if so as to tlie char- 

 acter and extent of such restrictions, renders it impossible in my opinion to arrive at 

 any solution which wouhl satisfy public opinion either in Canada or Great l^ritain 

 or in any country which may he invited to accede to the proposed arrangcmfnt 

 without a full inquiry by a mixed commission of experts the result of whose labours 

 aud investigations in the region of seal fishery would probably dispose of all the 

 points in dispute. 



And in that letter is proposed the draft of a legal convention consti- 

 tuting such a commission. 



In the note of May 23rd to Lord Salisbury, Sir Julian says in relation 

 to an interview with Mr. Blaine in which he had been urging ujjon the 

 latter the propriety of adopting Lord Salisbury's proposed convention. 



Moreover, it supplies the most complete machinery for arriving at a final decision 

 as to what regulations should be adopted for the preservation of the seal species. 



Mr. Blaine replies to Sir Julian's note in the letter of April 30, 1890, 

 in the same book, page 204, but he fails to comment on the position and 

 he rejects the draft convention. 



I need not read this correspondence, more or less of which has been 

 referred to before. It shows throughout what I have stated, that this 

 proposition for a joint commission came from Great Britain in the first 

 place, was received with disfavor by the United States Government, 

 was pressed again and again, assumed different forms, and finally was 

 assented to by the United States Government and found its way into 

 tlie Treaty. 



What, then, was the final result of all this up to the time of the com- 

 mencement of this Arbitration ? It was that the Convention first agreed 

 to, and delineated on the map, having fallen through for the reasons I 

 have stated, and the negotiation being renewed, the attitude of Great 

 Britain was that while the question of right must remain to be decided, 

 which they could not agree upon, the matter of regulations should be 

 referred to a joint commission, which they were confident would settle 

 the business. So was Mr. Blaine. So were all those who had anything 

 to do with it. They did not have a moment's doubt that when a commis- 

 sion of experts were sent out upon that theory to visit the islands and 

 examine the subject and inform themselves and decide what was neces- 

 sary for the preservation of the species, both nations would at once 

 accede to it: but in the event that they failed to agree, it was provided 

 that the subject should then be referred to arbitration — then and not till 

 then — a contingency not foreseen, and which ought not to have occurred. 

 We shall see as we go on how it happened that it did occur. It was in 

 that event only that this Tribunal, provided for by the treaty, was to be 

 charged with the business of doing what was first assigned to the mixed 

 conimission ; and if that had been satisfactorily performed, both nations 

 would have been quite willing to waive the discussion of the abstract 

 question of right. 



What is the attitude of this case as it appears before you now ? The 

 question of right still remains, as it remained before, to be discussed 

 and decided. The learned Attorney General was desirous to persuade 

 you that even the question expressed in the broad and comprehensive 

 terms of the sixth article only meant that you were to try again these 

 old Russian questions involved in the first four. I do not think that 



