FORTY-EIGHTH DAY, JULY 3^^^^, 1893. 



Mr. Phelps. — In order, Sir, to recall the line of ar,i;umeiit I was pur- 

 suing before it was interrupted by the recess of the Tribunal, I may 

 perhaps in a very few words recapitulate the propositions I had 

 endeavoured to su])port, setting out with the proposition that it was for 

 those who claimed the right to inflict upon the United States, not to 

 say the world, the injury wiiich we claim results from this business of 

 pelagic sealing, to establish its justification; that in support of the 

 attemi)ted justification they had rested their argument on two principal 

 pro})ositions; first, that these animals are /era' naturcv in the legal sense 

 of that term and, therefore, open to pursuit in any place where the pur- 

 suer has a right to be; and, in the next place, that the sea is free, and 

 that a pursuit of this sort is incident to the freedom of the sea and is, 

 therefore, a part of the common rights of mankind. 



In respect to the first proposition, I had contended at some length 

 that these animals are not ferce iiaturce in the legal acceptation of that 

 term, but that they were in the place, under the circumstances, in con- 

 nection with the industry that has been established there upon the 

 United States' territory, the property within the legal meaning of that 

 term of the United States, I had nearly concluded all that 1 desired to 

 say upon that particular branch of the case. In the effort, however, to 

 explain the legal operation of the numerous statutes which were cited 

 last week, which afford protection to similar property in many countries 

 and under many circumstances, I was drawn, somewhat out of tlie log- 

 ical line of my argument, to consider the subject of the right of self- 

 defence, to which I shall have to recur again in its more appropriate 

 connection, without, of course, repeating what I have already said. 

 Only two topics connected with the subject of property, 1 had desired 

 to observe upon before taking leave of it; and one of those, on account 

 of a mistake as to some references I desire to consult, I must pass this 

 morning in its regular order; that is a subject that has been discussed 

 on both sides of to the Newfoundland Fisheries as the rights were 

 claimed by Great Britain and the United States to exist at tlie time of 

 the Treaty of 1783, following the American Kevolution, and the Treaty 

 of 1818 which followed the war of 1812 between those Countries. Only 

 one other topic in that connection I desire to refer to, and that is what 

 has been called the right of the Indians to pursue the taking of the 

 seals in the water. You will bear in mind that in the Eegulations, a 

 draft of which was submitted on our side, there was an exception made 

 in favour of the Indians to a certain extent. 



It is said by my learned friends on the other side that if we concede 

 the right to the Indian to take the seals, we concede the whole case — 

 that the right of the Indian is no greater than the right of the white 

 man — that the right to take at all, involves the right to take to any 

 extent which is profitable and desirable to the pursuer, and that there 

 is an inconsistency therefore — an irremediable inconsistency in the 

 judgm'ent of my learned friends, between the position of the United 



139 



