106 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



That is tlie fouiKlation. The correspondence with INIr. Hoffman from 

 St. Petersburgh (who I believe was Charge d'Attaires at that time), is 

 based upon this letter. I need not read through this correspondence. 

 It follows here in the British Case. There are several letters and 

 finally there is one (on page 19 of the 3rd Part of Volume II of the 

 Appendix to the British Case), from M. de Giers to Mr. Hoffman dated 

 May 8 (20), 1882, in which he says: 



This measure 



that is, the measure that was complained of by the merchants or ship- 

 Ijers that I read from just now — 



this measure refers only to jirobibited industries and to the trade in contraband; 

 the restrictions which it establishes extend strictlj' to the territorial waters of Rus- 

 sia only. It was required by the numerous abuses proved in late years aud which 

 fell with all their weight on the population of our sea-shore and of our islands, 

 whose only means of support is by fishing and huntiug. These abuses inflicted also 

 a marked injury on the interests of the Company, to which the Imperial Govern- 

 ment had conceded the monopoly of fishing and hunting (" exportation "j in islands 

 called the "Commodore" aud the "Seals". 



IsToAv i^assing that for the present (with the privilege of referring to it 

 again tomorrow morning), you will find the view of the Eussian Gov- 

 ernment as to pelagic sealing — (we are going back to the case of 1802) — 

 in the United States Appendix, Volume I, page 192 — in a letter enclosed 

 b3' Mr. Lothrop the Minister at St. Petersburg!! to Mr. Bayard, secre- 

 tary of State, on the 8th December 1887, which I read to tiie Tribunal 

 on the first day I was addressing you. 



I^ow until 1892 the sealing industry on the Commander Islands, 

 maintained by the Government of Eussia, was not attacked. Up to 

 that time there had been no pelagic sealing, I infer, that was irarticu- 

 larly mischievous to the Eussian Government; and the British Com- 

 missioners at page 167 of their Eeport remark, referring to the Eussian 

 seal herd in its migrations to the Eussian seal islands: 



It is a matter of some surprise that no attempt is made to take them in the open 

 sea, as is done on such a large scale in the case of the seals resorting to the breediug 

 grounds of the eastern portion of Behring Sea. 



Sir EiOHARD Webster. — That is not the British Commissioners 

 Eeport. 



The President. — Is that the right reference? 



Mr. Phelps. It is published in their report. It is a report — I was 

 wrong in saying it was the British Commissioners' Eepoi't. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — It is in answer to enquiries that were 

 asked for. 



Mr. Phelps. — It is a Eei)ort nmde by the British Secretary of Lega- 

 tion in Japan at the request of the British Commissioners dated Tokio, 

 November 19th 1891. 



Lord llANNEN. — Where is it to be found. 



Mr. Phelps. — At page 107 of the British Commissioners Eeport, or 

 of the Appendix or Addendum to the British Commissioners Eeport. 

 It is the Eeport, I repeat, of the British Secretary of Legation in Japan 

 in reply to the British Commissioners and published by the Commis- 

 sioners. It is not their own language but it answers sufticiently to 

 show the fact. 



Then when the modus vivendi in 1892 was in force to a greater or less 

 extent, a great number of vessels resorted for the first time to the 

 vicinity of the Commander Islands, and then took place the seizures 

 by Eussia of those vessels — seizures which they had never had occa- 

 sion to make before because they had never been attacked, and which 



