Oral argument of hon. edward j. phelps. 85 



Now let me suppose that some sharp American should fit out a fish- 

 ing fleet, and go there in pursuance of the rights ot mankind, and 

 begin taking up thoi-se oysters in defiance of the regulations by Avhicli 

 alone they are protected from extermination — in defiance of laws wliich 

 prevent British subjects at least from interfering with them in a man- 

 ner that is not consistent with their protection. The commander of tliis 

 expedition is asked: "What are you iiroposing to do here"? " We are 

 proposing to take up pearl oysters and we have come out to make a 

 profit". Take tliem uj) — how? "Why as we get them". "At any i^ar- 

 ticular time" ? " Ko, at any time". " In any particular way " ? "No, iu 

 any Avay we can get them". "Are you aware that that would result in 

 the speedy destruction of the whole product"? "Well we do not care 

 anything about that. Let the ladies go Avithout their pearls. Wliat 

 consequence is it if they are exterminated? It is a small matter. And 

 any how, I am here on the part of mankind: you have no control over 

 the high sea; we are exercising the right of fishing on the high seas 

 free to all mankind". 



What does anybody suppose would take place? — That Great Britain 

 would stand back and bow in deference to those rights of mankind and 

 l)ermit that fishery to be exterminated? Will any man say tliat a 

 Government ought to do so? Does anybody suppose that it would do 

 so? Why the question answers itself. 



Wliat is tlie answer in the British argument to this? It is said in 

 the printed argument by my friends: "The right to these pearl fish- 

 eries out in the sea has been recognized from time immemorial by every 

 body ". That is precisely what we say. It belonged to you from time 

 immemorial, and it has been well recognized, and all the nations of the 

 earth have agreed to recognize it so far as can be shown by their 

 abstaining from interference. You have had — you have been permitted 

 to have — by the acquiescence of all nations, this ])ropei''ty: you bring 

 yourself— (in fiict this illustration is given by Vattel) — exactly within 

 the princii)le — you bring yourselves within analogous usages, when you 

 inlorm this fleet of quasi pirates that come there for the purpose of 

 destroying this industry with its means ot livelihood for those engaged, 

 witli its profits to the Government. Suppose that the case in this 

 Arbitration between Great Britain and the United States was, tliat 

 the United States claimed that the British Government vShould pa.y 

 for fishing vessels fitted out by the United States to go and prey 

 upon this pearl fishery at the risk of exterminating it; and suppose 

 Great Britain had done what she certainly would, and ought to 

 have done when those i)eople announced the purpose of their i)res- 

 ence there — had taken the ship, carried it in and confiscated it under 

 the provision of the laws made there and in force for that purpose, 

 and the United States calls upon Great Britain (as they call upon 

 us in this case), to pay for vessels seized in such fishing; suppose 

 that to be the question addressed to this Tribujial, and we to become 

 the advocates of the rights of mankind iu the open sea and ask 

 an award that vessels there for that avowed purpose and with that cer 

 tain result and seized by the British Government in pursuance of stat- 

 utes long in force, and well known to all the world should be paid for, 

 I should like to know what decision would be expected from this 

 Tribunal in that case? I should like to know what member of this 

 Tribunal would entertain that proposition for one single moment; and 

 yet it stands upon everything that can be invoked in favour of tlie 

 propositions of my learned friends iu respect of the seal. That is to 



