146 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



and then on do^vn to 4.5° 50' on the Asiatic side, still lower. But this was 

 not only a claim virtually to shut up Bebring- Sea, tliat is in its results, 

 (though the Kussiaus themselves said they did not claim any such thinj^ 

 as that,) but it was a claim which included down to a point which the 

 British Government could not concede without giving away their terri- 

 tory, and which the United States Government as it then claimed the 

 line, could not give away, because you will remember that until in 1846 

 the line between Great Britain and the United States was adjusted 

 where it is now, the American claim was considerably further to the 

 north than it was ultimately settled, by a wise and friendly compromise 

 between the two nations. 



The only importance of it now is as bearing on the quarrel of ISlil. 

 When Russia made this assertion it not only took what the British 

 claimed as their territory, but would have included what the United 

 States then claimed as their territory, not as it is now adjusted by the 

 boundary line, but as was then claimed. Therefore you see— and that is 

 the only importance of it, on both these grounds a challenge by these 

 two nations to the language of the Ukase of 18-Jl and to the boundary 

 which it extended was inevitable, and immediately took place; and 

 the only consequence now is whether it went far enough to cover the 

 fur-seal industry which we are concerned with. If it did,t]ien it has a 

 material bearing; if it did not, it left undisturbed the rights which, as 

 I pointed out, liussia had held without disjjute down to that time. 



Then the question comes to this — whether or not by those Treaties 

 was surrendered to these Governments or either of them by llussia any 

 part of her claim to the fur-seal business, or tishery as it was called. If 

 she did, then she modified this claim of exclusive possession that down 

 to that time she had maintained. If she did not, then that claim 

 remained undisturbed down to the time of the cession in 18G7. In the 

 first place, what is that which it is now proposed to be inferred Eussia 

 surrendered'? What is it that it is now claimed she virtually gave up 

 without being asked — because you will see from the correspondence 

 that no such claim was set up either on the part of Great Britain or the 

 United States — what is it that she gave away under this Treaty which 

 she had held, I repeat, without dispute down to that time 'i? Pressed 

 with that enquiry, and seeing at the threshold that it is a very grave 

 proposal to establish that she gave away all this industry, my learned 

 friends have remarked that it was not regarded as of any substantial 

 value; that down to the time of the purchase, the fur-sealing business 

 was not thought much of. 



That it was not thought anything of by Great Britain and the United 

 States will be plain enough when you refer to the correspondence. 

 But what was it to Russia? Up to the date of the negotiation of those 

 Treaties over 3,000,000 skins of the fur seal had been taken by Russia 

 out of the Behring Sea from the herd that frequent the Pribilof Islands, 

 more than has been taken ever since by the United States. In the 

 speech of Mr. Sumner in 18G7, which has been introduced into the Brit- 

 ish Case with high commendations of its authority, vol. 1, page 79, you 

 will find it stated that from 1787, the year after the Islands were dis- 

 covered till 1817, which was seven years before the first Treaty and 

 eight before the second, 2,500,000 seal skins had been taken, besides 

 700,000 thrown into the sea because they were badly cured and did not 

 pay to send to market. Therefore the statement of 3,000,00 is under 

 rather than above, because adding the 700,000 to the 2,500,000 taken 

 down to 1817, there were over 3,000,000 down to 1817 and then there 

 were seven years afterwards. In the United States Case, vol. 1, page 



