ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELrS. 59 



that consideration no Aveiglit in determining the question I have been 

 discussing, on whicli side of the line these animals fall? When it is 

 made ai)parent that not only their usefuhiess to mankind but their 

 existence on the earth depend upon the right of the nation in posses- 

 sion of them to preserve them, and as they have preserved them — they 

 and their predecessors — for one hundred years, if there is any doubt 

 upon the plain principles of municipal law — when you come to weigh 

 in the balance the reasons on which the law is founded, they settle the 

 question. 



Sir, suppose that the Province of Alaska was a country by itself, poor 

 and barren, and to a certain extent desolate. Suppose instead of being 

 a province of a great nation, which does not need it, it was a country 

 by itself. It would be larger then than many of the independent states 

 in the world; and suppose, what is almost true, if it is not quite true, 

 that the seal industry is all they liave, all the provision the Almighty 

 made for the existence of the inhabitants, all the food, the raiment, 

 the commerce, the business, the means to prevent their starving to 

 death; would the law be any different that applied to this case then, 

 than it is when ai)plied to the case of the United States? Would the 

 principle of law vary in that case? Could any intelligent man say, 

 " why, as they have nothing else, they own these animals; but if they 

 had gold and silver and abundant revenue they would not own them?" 



Now, pressed by the difticulty which my friends who have prepared 

 this case on the part of Great Britain felt themselves embarrassed by, 

 they have made an effort to break in, in some small degree, upon the 

 facts on which we base this right of possession. They say that all the 

 seals do not come back to the Pribilof Islands. The great bulk of 

 them do; but there are some few that travel over to the Commander 

 Islands. 



Before proceeding to demonstrate, as I can out of this evidence, that 

 there is not one word of truth in that suggestion, nor one word of evi- 

 dence to support it that does not perish when you expose it to the 

 light — I should like to inquire what difference it would make if it was 

 true? Suppose we were to concede that while the bulk of this army 

 comes back with an extraordinary certainty and pertinacity, yet a few 

 individuals scatter away and wander across the sea and may bring uj) 

 on the Commander Islands, the only other place besides Japan in the 

 Korthern Pacific where any other seals have been known to exist. How 

 far does that affect the case? I have said that our interest did not 

 depend upon the si)ecific ownership of every seal, whether each one came 

 back. It depends upon the general interest in the great herd and the 

 industry that is founded upon it. 



If it were conceded that some few of these seals did wander away, 

 and find their way to the Commander Islands, is that a distinction 

 which prevents the application of the general principles of law? The 

 statement of that question carries the answer to it. It is a question 

 that does not survive a distinct statement. Why then shall I take the 

 pains, with the permission of the Tribunal, to show that there is no 

 foundation for it? Because we believe that it is better for the Govern- 

 ment of the United States to be right than to succeed; because I sliall 

 not consent that any assertion that has been deliberately made by the 

 United States in this case upon any of these questions shall turn out 

 to be one in which the Government was wrong. This case has not 

 only been ably prepared by my friend who has had that subject in 

 charge. — General Foster; it has in my judgment been conscientiously 

 prepared. There is no assertion that has been made in this case, 



