116 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



There is iiotliing to discuss. No discussiou had been invited. They 

 had been stated by the llusslan Goverumeut as the measures to which 

 they i^roposed to resort. 



That ou the other hand, they must adhere to the reservation previously made by 

 them and coutaiiiod in NonrNote of the 12th of this month, and that it is understood, 

 that the rights and position of either Power are in no way affected by the conclusion 

 of this provisional arrangement; 



which is just what Eussia had said very emphatically. 



Now I repeat, Sir, with great respect, was I right or not in forecasting 

 this corresi)ondence which, as I have said, did not then exist, based 

 upon the action of Eussia, in characterizing her action as firm and 

 resolute, and in saying that in consequence of that firm and resolute 

 action, jjelagic sealing had come to an end in the vicinity of these 

 Islands to any extent that was regarded as detrimental? Was I right 

 in calling attention to the different positions which these two great 

 nations occupy today on that subject? The United States deprived of 

 the benefit of a convention that had once been really agreed on, and left 

 to prosecute this claim before an Arbitration ; Eussia instantly accorded, 

 not what they asked, but what they notified Great Britain they should 

 insist upon, giving the reasons and grounds of the demand. If my 

 learned friend says the Eussian Government, (as he did say in the course 

 of his observations) has the advantage of the advice of a gentleman of 

 large reputation in international law, I agree with him that there 

 could be no better evidence of it than this correspondence and its result 

 afford, that the Eussian Government knew in this matter precisely what 

 they were about, what they had a right to claim, and what it was neces- 

 sary for them to assert if they meant to defend or protect their interests. 



Now we come to this No. 3. I shall not apologize for the time I am 

 taking upon this point, because it is important it should be understood. 



The President. — Might we, Mr. Phelps, infer from your last words 

 that the agreement entered upon between England and Eussia would 

 in your eyes be considered sufficient for the protection of fur seals. 



Mr. Phelps. — No, that is a very different question, to which, in a 

 later stage of the argument, I will address myself. They got what 

 they demanded, the 30 mile zone and the 10 mile zone. They got 

 what they thought was sufficient. I mean for the temporary period. 

 Whether it was sufficient or not, that is to say, whether they were mis- 

 taken or not in the geographical limits in which they bounded their 

 right, is another question. 



I come now to this last correspondence, the purport of which is — and 

 I need hardly read anything from it — that on the Eeport of this Com- 

 mission Eussia made compensation to Great Britain or agreed to make 

 it, and I, of course, suppose will make compensation for two out of six 

 or eight vessels. 



Sir EiCHARD Webster. — Five. 



Mr. Phelps. — Well, out of five vessels that were seized, she has 

 agreed to make comi)ensation for two, and it has been, if not directly 

 urged, left to be inferred that that amounted to a concession on the 

 part of Eussia that she had no right to defend herself against these 

 aggressions outside the territorial limit, which, as you observe from one 

 passage in one of these letters I have been reading, is fixed as three 

 miles. It concedes nothing of the sort. Strong as my views are on 

 this question, I am free to say that if I had been upon the Commission 

 to determine as between Eussia and Great Britain whether those two 

 vessels or rather the owners of them must be compensated, I should 

 have decided as the majority of the Committee to which it was referred 



