112 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



will not refuse to take steps with regard to the English sealing-vessels, in accord- 

 ance with the rueasnres which the Imperial Government propose to take for the vear 

 1893. 



On their side, the Imperial Government will not fail to give to these measures, in 

 good time, the publicity which they require. 



Besides this, and in order to prevent as far as possible any misunderstandings and 

 disputes in case of infraction of the above provisional measures, as well as of the 

 general rules of international law, the cruizers of the Imperial Government and also 

 the local authorities will receive precise instructions, clearly laying down the cases 

 in which the right of pursuit, of search, and of seizure of offending vessels should 

 be exorcised. 



As it is affirmed that the sealing-vessels, while themselves remaining outside 

 territorial waters and sometimes more than 10 miles from shore, dispatch a portion 

 of their crews and their boats to the coast, and within, or very nearly within, terri- 

 torial waters, the above-mentioned instructions will prescribe the pursuit and 

 search of all vessels whose boats or crews shall have been observed or seized while 

 sealing on the coast, or within the zone prohibited by the provisional measures for 

 1893. 



As a strong presumption results from the mere fact of the presence of boats near 

 the coast or within the prohibited zone, even when it has been impossible at first to 

 decide whether these boats were engaged in sealing or not, it shall be permissible to 

 pursue and search the vessels to which such boats belong. 



The seizure, on board vessels thus searched, of special implements employed in 

 sealing on shore, as well as of seal-skins the greater part of which are those of 

 females, will constitute sufficient grounds for the seizure of the vessel, in view of 

 the fact that the female seals, during the season of suckling their young, rarely, if 

 ever, depart further than 10 miles from the shore, excepting on the banks around the 

 islands. 



When informing the captains of English sealing-vessels of the provisional meas- 

 ures drawn up for the year 1893, Her Majesty's Government will perhaps think it 

 advisable to communicate to them likewise a summary of the instructions which 

 will be given to the Russian cniizers, and to add that the right of surveillance will 

 also be given to vessels belonging to the coast on the mainmast of which the Gov- 

 ernor of the Commander Islands hoists the Russian Custom-house flag when he is on 

 board in the discharge of his duties. 



When I wrote those lines which my learned friends criticise, in which 

 I referred to the firm and resolute action of Kussia, these words had 

 not been written. They completely confirm what I said, not by the 

 strength of what she has said, but by the strength of what she has 

 done, which was more emphatic. When Russia finds herself, for the 

 first time in her history, in the position in which the United States 

 are now in respect of this business of pelagic sealing, excepting that 

 her interest is much smaller than that of the United States, what does 

 she do ? Invite Great Britain to enter into some modus vivendi by which 

 the depredations may be suspended"? Far from it. She says " We are 

 ready and anxions to enter into the Triple convention between the three 

 nations concerned, proposed in 1887. We agree in the ])ropriety of such 

 a Convention, — we are most desirous for it; but in the meantime direc- 

 tions will be issued to the crnisers of the Eussian Government and to 

 all vessels hoisting the Custom House flag, to seize every vessel that is 

 found within 30 miles of the Islands or 10 miles of the shore, and to 

 search and examine any vessel, or the boats of any vessel, which hov- 

 ering round there, gives reasonable grounds for suspicion as to the bus- 

 iness they are engaged in." That is the position of Russia; and, if 

 that had been the position of the United States I repeat, this Arbitra- 

 tion never would have taken place. There is the difference. We had 

 invited the Convention and, as I pointed out to you, it had been con- 

 ceded and agreed upon and then was arrested by the objections of 

 Canada. They had participated in 1887, as the correspondence shows 

 you, in the same negociations and manifested the same willingness; 

 but when that fell through on account of the objection of Canada, Russia 

 said: "in the meantime this infamous business is not to go on." That 

 was their position ; and what is the consequence. The consequence is 



