222 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



our interest to be at peace, but the interest of mankind that we should 

 be at peace? VVliy, it is one place; one little town, Victoria, that is 

 concerned in tliis business. I do not see that the rest of Canada has 

 any interest in it. Here is a little knot of people in Victoria who have 

 gone into tliis business, — a casual, a speculative, a tem])orary business, 

 in which the investment is small, the business is small, the profits are 

 precarious, sometimes large but still precarious, as all such pursuits 

 must be, and which is inevitably, if we are right about its being destruc- 

 tive, temporary. 



In the American case, page 284, there are a few words I wish to 

 read because the authority for them is given there: 



Cousal Myers, in a report to the State Department, gives the occupation of 

 seventy-one owners of sealing vessels hailing from the port of Victoria. Of these 

 only fourteen may be said to be dependent on sealing, and twelve others who are 

 employed in maritime enterprises. The remainder are composed of individuals 

 engaged in various pursuits. Among the list may be found several public officials, 

 seven grocers, a druggist, an auctioneer, a farmer, three saloon keepers, a plasterer, 

 an insurance agent, two iron founders, three real estate agents, a carriage manufac- 

 turer, a tanner, two women, a machinist, and others of different pursuits. 



That is the statement, and I refer the Tribunal to peruse, what I 

 cannot take time to peruse, the authority itself for this statement. 



Lord Hannen. — I suppose those are the shareholders of the ships. 

 That is just the same thing which would happen in England. 



Mr. Phelps. — I was not aware that it was incor]iorated. 



Lord Hannen. — No, not at all, but they are the shareholders in the 

 ships. 



Mr. Phelps. — Well, call them shareholders or what you please. 

 They are the owners of this investment. They are the persons who 

 either under the name of shareholders or something else are prose- 

 cuting what my learned friends call this industry. I say it is per- 

 fectly speculative. It is not a legitimate industry — it is speculative, 

 in which various persons take a hand as they would buy stock in a 

 railroad or a steamboat company, or buy a lottery ticket. In the liglit 

 of what I said this morning, of the principles that cover this subject, 

 I ask attention to the ])ersons that are engaged in it. 



Then the amount of the investment is gone into there. That is 

 shown in the same book. It is said in the Case — and nothing is said 

 for which authority is not cited: 



It is very questionable, however, whether there is any real investment in Canada 

 in pelagic sealing. The vessels are all common vessels, the guns common guns, and 

 the boats common boats, which can all be used in some other industry, excepting, 

 perhaps, the old and unseaworthy vessels. 



But admitting the validity of the investment, it can be questioned whether those 

 embarking therein as a rule pay the expenses incurred out of the sum realized on 

 the catch. An examination of the table of sealing vessels and their respective 

 catches, as given by the Canadian Fishery Reports, shows that the number of seals 

 taken by a vessel varies to a great extent. Thus in 1889 several vessels took less 

 than three hundred seals each; one schooner, with a crew of twenty-nine men, took 

 but one hundred and sixty -four seals, while another, with a crew of twenty-two 

 men, took over three thousand. In 1890 the same variation may be seen. In 1889 

 the average selling price of skins in Victoria was $7.65. On the catch of one hun- 

 dred and sixty-four seals, therefore, the total received would be $1,254.60, of which 

 at least $400 would liave to be paid to the hunters. 



This is pursued through several pages further and I do not take up 

 your time to read it. I just ask attention to it. 



Now, another thing appears and I cannot pass it without referring 

 to it; and that is the extent, which would have come l)efore you on the 

 claim of damages that was originally submitted in the British Case if 

 it was not withdrawn, to which these vessels are owned in whole and 



