104 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



Mr. Phelps. — I am aware of it. I do not know how far tlie sealing 

 was pelagic at the Lobos I.slands; bnt it is such protection as the case 

 requires; in the anchoring of vessels off" there the three mile limit is 

 not observed, and it is very apparent under the effect of the Statute 

 which the Chief Clerk furnishes (he does not send the full Act) — no act 

 wonld be permitted to be done by foreigners which would tend to exter- 

 minate those seals, w^hatever it was; — it might be ])elagic sealing; and 

 it would be no answer to say if a vessel were to go and anchor outside 

 the three mile line and take any measures that would tend to destroy 

 the seal, — it would be no ans\\er to the Government to say they were 

 outside the line; nor is there a geographical limit to the Act in question. 



The case of Chile and the Argentine Republic Statutes will be found 

 on page 229 of our Case: 



The Lobos Island rookeries have for over 60 years beeu protected by the Govern- 

 ment of Uruguay. 



And the return comes, as the Furriers testify, into the London market. 



The Governments of Chile and the Argentine Republic have also recently given pro- 

 tection to the fur-seals resorting to their coasts in the hope of restoring their almost 

 exterminated rookeries. 



In the second United States Ajipendix is a deposition on that point 

 from a sealer I believe at page 597. 



Sir Charles IIussell. — The Chilian law is expressly stated to be 

 territorial. 



Mr. Phelps. — This is the deposition of George Cower. He is a resi- 

 dent of East Haddam Connecticut, and has been engaged in sealing in 

 the southern hemisphere for a number of years and has visited all these 

 I)laces, and si)eaks of visiting these islands. He says: 



About 1850 this island was visited by an American who practically cleaned off the 

 seals. The captain I shipped with Joseph F'nller visited the island in 1880 and took 

 3,600 seals practically all there were; and this was their increase for the 30 years 

 from 1850. While I was at Cape Town 1 saw a gang start out for sealing on that 

 coast; the rookery I understood to be about 25 miles from Cape Town. 



They are in the possession or control of a Company, as I was then informed, which 

 has the exclusive right to take seals there. We did not dare go to those rookeries 

 because sealing was prohibited and we would not have been allowed to take them 

 in the waters adjacent thereto. Argentina also claimed possession of Staten Land at 

 Cape Town and since about 1882 or 1883 we have not been allowed to take seals at 

 that point or in the waters near there, although the citizens of Argentina themselves 

 have taken seals there every year as I understand and believe. 



That is all on that subject. It is simply to show the extent of this 

 protection. 



The enactments of Japan are in the first United States Appendix, 

 page 449, and it is a prohibition entirely for the present, is general in its 

 terms, and simply shows the necessity for the protection in the judgment 

 of that government, and the protection that it received. 



Now I come to the ground taken by Russia in the possession and pro- 

 tection of these Commander Island Fisheries, in respect of which a good 

 deal has been said by my friends on the other side — 1 do not mean the 

 ancient protection — I mean the present protection — the recent protection 

 of the Commander Islands. 



Senator Morgan. — Do they differ — the ancient and the present 1 



Mr. Phelps. — They do not differ, but I mean I will deal with the cir- 

 cumstances of the recent protection. I hope to show that they do not 

 differ from what has always been enforced by the Russian Government. 

 Now in reply to what is said in the printed Argument of the United 

 States in reference to what is called there "the firm and resolute action 



