ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 109 



Tliere is much more intbrmatiou in this article if auyoue cares to 

 peruse it; but I will not take time to read ivirtlier. 



On yesterday, in commenting upon wLat liad been said by my learned 

 friends on tlie other side in regard to the attitude of Russia, I found 

 myself destitute at the moment of the reference I desired to make show- 

 ing that the seizures of American vessels referred to by my learned 

 friend Sir Charles Kussell, the "Eliza" and "Henrietta", were the sub- 

 ject of a correspondence between the Russian Government and the 

 United States Government, and bad nothing at all to do with the busi- 

 ness of seal hunting. And I will now read, as it is not long, Mr. 

 Lothrop's letter, the Minister of the United States at St. Petersburg, 

 written in 1887 to the Secretary of State, in which he gives concisely 

 the whole facts in regard to those vessels and shows very clearly that 

 it had nothing to do at all with the subject on which we are engaged. 

 This is page 22 of volume 2, part 2, of the Appendix to the British Case : 



I have the honor to trausmit to you a translation of a couininnication received 

 i"rom the Imperial Foreign Office on the 1st February instant, relative to the seizure 

 of the schooner ''Eliza." The Russian Governnieut claims that she was seized and 

 condemned under the provisions of an Order or Regulation, \Yhich took effect at the 

 beginning of 1882, and which absolutely prohibited every kind of trading hunting 

 and tishing on the Russian Pacific coast without a special licence from the Governor- 

 General. 



It is not claimed that the "Eliza" was engaged in seal fishing, but that she was 

 found engaged in trading with the contraband articles of arms and strong liquors. 



She was condemned by a commission sitting on the Imperial corvette "Raslioinik" 

 composed of the officers thereof. In this respect the case is precisely like that of the 

 "Henrietta" mentioned in my last preceding despatch No. 95 and of this date. 



It will be noticed that Mr. Spooner, the owner of the Eliza, in his statement of his 

 claim, declares that the "Eliza" was "on a trading voyage, engaged in bartering 

 with the natives, and catching walrus, and as such did not come under the Notice of 

 the Russian Government, which was directed against the capture of seals on Copper 

 Robben and Behring Islands". 



It will be seen that Mr. Spooner either refers to an Order of the Russian Govern- 

 ment difierent from the one mentioned by the Imperial Foreign Office, or he under- 

 stood the latter in a very different sense. 



I may add that the Russian Code of Prize Law of 1862, Article 2, and now in force, 

 limits the jurisdictional waters of Russia to 3 miles from the shore. 



As stated in my previous despatch, I have asked for a copy of the Order or Regula- 

 tion under which the " Henrietta" and "Eliza" were seized and condemned. 



It is seen therefore by the statement of the American Minister in 

 regard to the claim of his own country, that the grounds on which these 

 vessels were seized were, that they were violating the Order against 

 trading with the natives, especially in fire-arms and spirituous liquors, 

 and the seizure by the Russian Government was submitted to therefore, 

 by the United States Government, and the claims for compensation if 

 made were not insisted upon. 



Now I come, as I am nearly through with what I may call the historic 

 instances of the protection of property of this description, to the recent 

 transactions, so recent that they have come before you by papers sub- 

 mitted by my learned friends since the argument was finished on their 

 side, or nearly so; at any rate at a late stage in the argument. They 

 have submitted two Parliamentary papers, Russia No. 1, 1803, and 

 Russia, No. 3, 1893, on this subject, printed after being laid before Par- 

 liament; and my learned friends seem to be of opinion that what we had 

 said in the argument in respect of tbe firm and resolute action of Russia 

 on this subject is refuted to some extent by the correspondence that is 

 shown to have taken place between the Governments in reference to tliat 

 action. On the contrary, in my judgment the position taken in the 

 argument is exactly confirmed by the correspondence, as I shall tiy to 

 point out, reading from the Parliamentary paper, No. 1, in the first x^lace, 



