214 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



which we alone are not concerned; in which all civilization is con- 

 cerned; in which Great Britain is concerned, in respect of its particular 

 industries, as much as M^e are; in which France is concerned and other 

 nations, and in which all civilization, I repeat, is concerned to a greater 

 or less extent; — I say, in the second place, that if it were not extermi- 

 nating the race, this conduct offends the moral sense in its manner, is 

 so barbarous, so inhuman, so shocking — too shocking to be talked 

 about here or to have the evidence read in its revolting details — and 

 that by such conduct in such a manner, these people are destroying 

 this industry of the United States Government, not its only resource 

 by a great many, but in respect of which, as I reminded you so long 

 ago that it may well have been forgotten, the law would have been the 

 same if this poor province of Alaska had been an independent State, 

 and this fur-sealing industry was every resource it had for the subsist- 

 ence of the people or for deriving its national expenses. There is not 

 one law for the large State and another for the small one, unless it is 

 the law of the strong hand. 



That is the question with which this Tribunal is concerned, and which 

 would have induced me, if I had pursued my own individual judgment, 

 to have argued this case, so far as I had anything to say about it, in 

 two hours; because I deny — I respectfully deny — that after this con- 

 crete case which is to be determined by the Tribunal, is stripped of its 

 adjuncts, its superfluities, its connections, and its unnecessary analy- 

 sis, — when it is brought down to its elements, it presents that proposi- 

 tion and that is enough to determine it. Many others that we have 

 tried to discuss, with more or less success, may legitimately be pre- 

 sented. 



The title of the United States Government to this territory is not 

 questioned. The industry which they built up there is not controverted. 

 Its value and importance are not doubted. That it is the means of such 

 civilization as is being successfully introduced there in the place of the 

 savage condition that prevailed is not questioned. That the operations 

 of these euphemistically termed pelagic sealers are of the character 

 that I have described and have the consequence that I have described, 

 will not be doubted, (if it is doubted now), before we have done with 

 this case; and the question is: Is a Government obliged to sit down 

 and sufl'er conduct at this expense, and for the benefit of my learned 

 friend Mr. Robinson's particular clients, or have they the right of pro- 

 tection in themselves, and for the world, against if? It is unnecessary 

 to carry this case in my humble judgment a single step beyond that 

 enquiry. They stand upon the freedom of the sea. Very well. You 

 have the right to stand upon the freedom of the sea so far as it goes, 

 and till you get to the limit of it. Is this within the freedom of the 

 sea! If it is, why then there are no limits. Then the sea becomes not 

 merely the highway of nations — not merely the element upon which 

 all nations are equal — it becomes the only element on the face of the 

 earth in which conduct which is universally repressed by criminal law 

 can be perpetrated with impunity, as against the nation that is gravely 

 injured by the consequences of it. Of course, in order for a nation to 

 assert itself against such conduct, it must be brought into such relation 

 to it that arises from sustaining a serious injury. In that respect, it 

 differs from the law of piracy. The title of the United States to inter- 

 fere rises out of the right and the necessity of self defence. 



Now, Sir, a few words more, and but a few words on this point. I 

 remarked that I accepted my friend's suggestion that the destruction 

 of the Newfoundland fish by dynamite would be malicious. Extermi- 



