ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 89 



what is the technical effect of a statute. What has beeu the actual 

 effect of such statutes, for the one hundred years or more that they 

 have prevailed in all parts of the earth. My learned friend who just 

 now was so clear that the passage from Vattel, that I began by read- 

 ing this morning, applied only to the three-mile limit, forgot for the 

 moment that they have cited that very ])assage in the printed argu- 

 ment in sui)port of their right to protect tliose Pearl Fisheries 20 miles 

 out at sea. JMy friend cites the same passage that I have read as show- 

 ing that their right to the Pearl Fisheries is unquestionable. But this 

 morning he iiilorms us that Vattel is very clearly applying it only to 

 the three-mile limit. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — 1 was not referring to that passage in the 

 observation I made. 



Mr. Phelps. — That passage was the only subject of discussion at 

 the time. 



Sir Charles Kussell. — They are not in the same section at all — 

 not in the same connection, 



Mr. Phelps. — I am referring to the passage that I read from the 

 United States Argument this morning, being one section and a part of 

 the next section, and the question arose — it was suggested by his Lord- 

 ship, that perhaps that Vattel meant to say that the right was exclu- 

 sive within 3 miles. That was the point, and my friend says that is 

 what it means, and that the context shows it; and yet in the British 

 Argument, at page 51, you will lind this very j)assage referred to in 

 support of the claim they there make that their right to the Pearl 

 Fisheries which they have had from time immemorial, is unquestioned; 

 and they give there the very meaning and the correct meaning to the 

 passage from Vattel that I gave it this morning. 



Now my friends may have this one way or the other. It does not so 

 much stand upon whac Vattel says, eminent as he is; it is a good 

 starting point to find the proposition so felicitously stated by so great 

 a writer. Cast that aside: what is the usage of mankind in regard to 

 these various kinds of i^roperty? They say: there is no analogy 

 between oysters and seals. Well, what is the reason that there is not? 

 And, if there is a dilference, which way does the difiereuce make 1 Both 

 are marine products to a certain extent — the oysters exclusively so. 

 They never come ashore — never touch the British territory: the seals 

 do come ashoie, and they must. Thej' are produced there and they 

 remain there a consideraljle ])art of the time. Now what is the reason 

 that there is not an analogy? and, so far as the analogy fails, in 

 which is the case the strongest for the right of protection if there is a 

 difference between the two cases? 



There is the case of the Mexican Pearl Fisheries. I will not read 

 those Statutes again. They have been read once, and they are in 

 print before you. We know what their effect is, but I will briefly refer 

 to the map. If you will have the kindness. Sir, to glance at the map, 

 it is at page 486 of the first volume of the United States Appendix. 

 You Avill see there laid out — (and it has not been questioned in the 

 British Counter Case that it is laid out correctly) — the extent of the 

 Fisheries that are there protected. Those red and blue concessions — 

 (that is the space in which these oysters are found) — are each 5 kilo- 

 metres in width. The technical operation of these Statutes I Avill 

 consider by and bye; what has faleii, place with regard to those Fisher- 

 ies? Have tliey ever been permitted to be invaded by the Government 

 of Mexico? Is there proof that somebody has gone there sailing under 



