224 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



at the improper time of tlie year in the North Pacific as well as in 

 Bolniiio- Sea. The roasou is because it is impossible to go into a 

 j)arliamentary, or (Congressional Assembly and pro^^ose the ])assage of 

 a law that should exclude American citizens from the profits of pelagic 

 sealing so long as it was thrown open to the rest of the world. Thj^t 

 is the reason. ISio Government could propose such a measure as that ' 

 with the expectation that it would be carried. Who would vote for 

 that "? If by voting for it you can preserve the seal from extermination 

 it is worth while, but to say that the seal shall be exterminated and 

 nobody shall participate in the profit except a foreigner would be futile. 



The President. — Is this a criticism in Parliamentary Government? 



Mr. Phelps. — Well it is better than some criticisms; it is true. It 

 would be idle to propose it and it would be equally unjust. But Con- 

 gress, as soon as there was a prosi)ect of the preservation of the seal 

 herd, passed a statute in 1892, an Act intitled an Act to extend to the 

 North Pacific Ocean the provisions of the Statute for the protection of 

 the fur seals and other fur-bearing animals. 



Senator MorGtAN. — I hope you will put it on record. I have not a 

 copy of that. 



Mr. Phelps. — It is very recent — ;iust as we were coming here it was 

 passed through Congress. And now in order to seal in the North 

 Pacific as well as in the Behring Sea it will be necessary for that class 

 of American citizens who want to go into that business to get their 

 vessels registered in Canada, or sail under another flag. 



Senator Morgan. — I suppose it would be as well to say that Con- 

 gress was not aware until a recent period that citizens of the United 

 States were obstructing the policy of their own country bj putting 

 their money under the British flag in order to seal on this herd. 



Mr. Phelps. — The investigations that have been made in this case. 

 Sir, have thrown more light upon every branch and portion of this 

 subject than ever had been known before. 



Now what is the consequence of all this? I have done with the 

 parties to it. We say it is extermination. What do they say on the 

 other side? What is the ground they take in respect to this great 

 underlying fact that what they call pelagic sealing is necessarily and 

 at no distant date a complete extermination. 



That is our assertion. 



What is theirs? No Member of this Tribunal can undertake to state ; 

 it is not denied, but it is not conceded. It is talked about. They say 

 there are other reasons why the herd is being exterminated — that it is 

 the fault of the management of the Islands, all of which 1 shall come 

 to in due time if I go on with the discussion of this case. Aside from 

 any conduct good or bad, anything that may be expected from an 

 intelligent nation in the struggle to preserve this industry that belongs 

 to it — aside from all that, what do they say is the consequence of 

 pelagic sealing in and of itself? 



I repeat, no Member of this Tribunal can undertake to formulate the 

 proposition of the other side. They admit killing in the water to be 

 indiscriminate, and it must be — for nobody killing seals in the sea can 

 undertake to discriminate about sex or age. Unless they are very 

 young animals and very small there can be no discrimination. Well, 

 then, what follows? If this trade were in its normal condition, half of 

 the seals to be found in the sea would be females — more than half prob- 

 ably, because, while everybody concedes that of those born into tlie 

 world half are male and half are female, it is not the normal condition 

 of any herd of polygamous animals that as many males survive as 



