ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 191 



Mr. Phelps. — In reply to the question put by the Marquis Venosta 

 before the adjournment, I read fiom tlie United States Counter Case, 

 page 22 and folIo\ying. It will be renieud)ered that the Treaty of 1824, 

 that we have been discussing, conferred upon the subjects of both 

 Governments mutual rights for 10 years of trading with the settlements 

 of the other. After that 10 years limitation expired, that is after 1834, 

 the United States Government made an effort with Russia to get an 

 extension of it, and that effort failed; and very soon after the exi)ira- 

 tion of the time, this American ship, the "Loriot", was arrested by the 

 Russian Government, and I will ask Mr. Foster to be good enough to 

 point out on the map where it was taken. 



General Foster [Pointing it out]. — It was about 54<^ 55'. 



Mr. Phelps. — It was on Russian territory, and it was seized by the 

 Russian Government; the United States protested and asked for com- 

 pensation; and Mr. Dallas claimed, in the correspondence which is 

 referred to on a subsequent page of the Counter Case, that the right 

 to do what the vessel engaged in was a general right, and did not 

 depend upon the consent of Russia. In other words, Mr. Dallas's claim 

 was substantially that the United States had the same rights there 

 without the concession of the Treaty of 1824 that it had with them. It 

 is not surprising that that claim of the United States failed entirely. 

 It was rejected by the Russian Government, which, in the correspond- 

 ence that ensued, pointed out what the objection was; and it was aban- 

 doned and dropped by the United States. No compensation was made 

 for the vessel. The vessel was not given up. The right of the United 

 States to go there and trade was not conceded, and an extension of the 

 terms of the Treaty of 1824 was not made. Why? The nations were, 

 as they always have been, x)erfectly friendly, and the same reasons 

 existed for extending the treaty provisions 10 years longer that could 

 have existed for making them in the tirst place. The reason was the 

 mischief to the industries of Russia, which, as they claimed, inevitably 

 followed the exercise of it. So they not only refused to extend them, 

 but they seized and confiscated the vessel. It would not be useful for 

 me to take up the time to read it, but a review of the correspondence 

 (because it exactly expresses the views on one side and the other) will 

 be found at pages 180 to 184 of the Counter Case of the United States, 

 a summary, not the whole of it, and extracts from the correspondence. 



Marquis Venosta. — I asked you for an elucidation of the question 

 coucerning not the "Loriot" case but the "Eliza" case. You will find 

 that at pages 20, 21 and 22 of the Appendix to the British Case, vol- 

 ume 2. 



Mr. Phelps. — Yes; I did not quite understand your question, Sir. 

 I thought it was restricted to the "Loriot" case. 



The case of the "Eliza" was a vessel that w^as seized by the Rus- 

 sian Government in 1887; and it was seized for the breach of an order 

 or regulation which took effect at the beginning of 1882. I Avill read 

 from Mr. Lothrop's letter to Mr. Bayard, the Secretary of State. Mr. 

 Lothrop was our Minister. 



The Russian Government claims that she was seized and condemned nnder the 

 provisions of an Order, or Regulation, which took cflect at the beginninp; of 1882, 

 and which absolutely prohibited every kind of trading, hunting and fishing on the 

 Russian Paciiic coast without a special licence from the Governor-General. 



It is not claimed that the " Eliza" was engaged in seal fishing. 



Marquis Venosta. — It is on that word that I asked for some expla- 

 nation; because General Vlangaly wrote to the United States Minister, 

 that the shii) was confiscated not on tlie ground of seal-fishing in the 



