ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 183 



Mr. PHELrs, — They do not. That supports my contention — that 

 when tliis Ukase of isiil oarae out, to the extent the Ixussians exphiined 

 it — to the extent that they relied upon it — no question was ever raised. 

 Nobody, on the part of the United States or Great Britain r(^se up and 

 said: ''You are exchuling us from taking the fur beariug animals". 

 They never had taken a fur bearing aniuiah 



Lord Hannen. — They did not say so as to the whole. 



Mr. Phelps.— No. 



Lord Hannen. — You do not deny that they had the right to go up 

 there and fish for whales? 



Mr. Phelps. — They said only "fishing" — there is nothing about 

 whales and nothing about seals. 



The President. — Do you not think the British diplomatists, in their 

 eagerness to come to an agreement with Russia, would naturally, express 

 something agreeable to Kussia — an acknowledgement of the exclusive 

 right of liussia to take the seals in the Behriug Sea. I think any diplo- 

 matist would be very eager to state that as a concession. 



Mr. Phelps. — Undoubtedly, if the special point had been raised ; but 

 the question under discussion was how far the Ukase of 1821 should be 

 modified. The Ukase of 1821 covered that and a great deal more. It 

 was what it purported to cover beyond that that v^as in dispute; and 

 when that was renounced and the right of navigation re-afiirmed so to 

 speak, that was the end of the controversy and the confusion, if you 

 will allow me to say so, sir, that attends this subject. 



The President. — Then both Governments, the United States and 

 England accepted the maintenance of the Ukase of 1821. 



Mr. Phelps. — Yes, subject to the explanation that they did not 

 intend it to intercept navigation. 



The President. — At any rate your meaning is very clear. 



Mr. Phelps. — Yes. I was about to say, Sir, that the confusion 

 arises, at this late period, in trying to bring this subject to bear upon 

 a discussion with which it has really nothing to do and mingling 

 together the consideration of two very different topics. Now let me 

 go back to the application of this to our present discussion. What we 

 claim and all that we claim is this: That from the discovery of these 

 islands down to the cession of tliem to the United States by Russia, 

 this fur-sealing industry as maintained and carried on and created by 

 Russia and preserved, never was interfered with. No nation — no 

 individual — claimed a right to do what the Canadians claim the right 

 to do in this case; and we claim that as a povvciful confirmation, a cor- 

 roboration, of the title we assert now, and which Russia might have 

 asserted, of course, if it had been challenged at the beginning of this 

 century in 1800. We claim it as a powerful corroboratioii that during 

 almost a century, if not quite, the right that we stand upon was enjoyed 

 by Russia, and never was interfered with or challenged or questioned. 



Now to meet that — to break the force of that contention — which is 

 all we care for — they say: "Why there was a Ukase of 1821 which 

 asserted this and a great deal more, and that was withdrawn and mod- 

 ified, and the modification of that is to be taken, not as a direct con- 

 cession (because the subject is not mentioned), but as an inferential 

 concession by Russia that she had not this right over the fur-breeding 

 aniuuils." Well, the moment you perceive that that question was not 

 involved — that neither Great Britain nor America in that negotiation 

 or correspondence any where claimed such a right — that no citizen of 

 that country ever claimed such a right — and that the whole discussion 

 was upon the subject of the right of navigation in the sea and through 



