ORAL, ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 95 



sea. It will be seen, as I pass over these instances, that in every spot 

 wliere there are any seal -. now, even in places where they have been so 

 nearly exterminated, that it is almost qnestionable whether it is worth 

 while to try to restore them, like these very Falkland Islands and some 

 other places, wherever there are seals enongli to afford any prospect of 

 nsefnlness in attempting to protect them, there they are protected. So 

 that if the right exists to come here and exterminate this race npon the 

 high seas, then it follows that you may do on the high seas what the 

 inhabitants of this country are prohibited by their own laws from doing 

 within their Jnrisdiction, — what is ])rohibited by the laws of every 

 country where the same animal is still to be found. 



It is said by my learned friend, Sir Richard Webster, that in the 

 case of the "Harriet", which was a vessel belonging to the United 

 States that was captured at the Falkland Islands, the correspondence 

 contains some language tending to show that the Government of the 

 United States did not recognize any right to interfere with them upon 

 the high seas, but asserted the contrary. My learned friend is wrong 

 in the inference he draws from that case, except to the very limited 

 extent that I shall point out. The correspondence will be found in the 

 Counter Case of the United States at page 184. The American vessel, 

 the "Harriet", which was seized there, was seized for taking seals on 

 the Falkland Islands; and, of course, there can be no question about 

 the illegality of that, or the proju-iety of the seizure; but the case fell 

 for discussion into the hands of some gentleman not named, who Avas a 

 United States Charge d'Affaires, that is to say, he was the Secretary 

 of the Legation at Buenos Ayres, which is not a very great Legation, 

 and had the good fortune to be able to deal with this subject in the 

 absence of his principal. Those who have paid much attention to 

 diplomacy have become aware that the ablest diplomatists are those 

 who consume the least ink in dispatclies that have to be printed. But 

 there is another class of diplomatist, if you can dignify them by such 

 a name, of less distinction, and of whose labours the results are gener- 

 ally wanting, who lose no opportunity to enlighten the world by the 

 discussion of those abstract propositions that wise nations and wise 

 statesmen avoid the discussion of just as far as they can. I do not 

 know who this young gentleman was, his name has not survived; but 

 young or old, I should judge from his style he was not past tiie period 

 of imagination. 



Sir Charles Russell. — He says he is stating the views of his Gov- 

 ernment. 



Mr. Phelps. — Undoubtedly he is stating the views of his Govern- 

 ment, as expressed by himself. A Charf/e cV Affaires always does 

 express the views of his Government in what he says officially ; but 

 whether he had received instructions from his Government to discuss a 

 question that was not raised, is not shown; from my knowledge of the 

 statesmen who had control of the Government of the United States at 

 the date of this correspondence, I should think it very doubtful if he 

 had. I think if he had received any instructions from his Department, 

 it would have been to confine his discussion to the i)oint in dispute, and 

 not to anticipate evil by discussing some question that was not up. 

 He does set forth what fiilminations would have been launched by the 

 United States Government against anybody that had seized a hypo- 

 thetical vessel on the high sea, on the pretence that it was doing some- 

 thing that could be imagined; and what he says on that subject may 

 go for what it is worth, as far as it is authority. But iJu; case jiresents 

 nothing except the right of the authorities to capture that vessel for 



