ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 269 



Mr. Eedi>;itli was the Ascjit from 1875 to 1893. 



Mr. AVardimiu from 1881 to 1885, and Mr. Webster from 1870 to 1893, 

 and still there. It would ouly be a wearisome repetition to read over 

 again the testimony of these witnesses, using- slightly different language, 

 but conveying exactly the same ideas and stating the same iacts. 



What then does this whole charge of over-driving come to, aside from 

 Mr. Elliott, on all the evidence in this case on both sides'? On the one 

 hand, there is not a word of testimony to sustain it, but there is on the 

 other hand a vast body of testimony to the confrary. We have exam- 

 ined every agent and employe on the Island, and every official who was 

 there in a i)osition to know, and there is no evidem-e that there was any- 

 thing objectionable in the nnnnier of driving- down to 1890, but it is all 

 to the contrary. Then how came it to pass that in 1890, an excejttion 

 arose as to the method of re-driving* and frequent drivings that had 

 never obtained before 1 Sim})ly because from the ravages of pelagic 

 sealing-, the aniuuils were not to be obtained in any other way. So 

 that what is set up in answer to our complaint of the devastation 

 that this business has wrought is only the actual conseituence of the 

 devastation itself. 



Now take Mr, Elliott's theory. A few words on that, still conscious 

 that I have unduly dignified this branch of the case by the time I have 

 spent upon it; a few words may be usefully said about Mr. Elliott, who 

 has cut a ligure iu this case from tlie beginning- that is altogether 

 disproportionate to any consideration be is entitled to. 



I have nothing to say against him. You will remember, when we 

 began this hearing long ago, there was an a|)plication for Mr. Elliott's 

 Eeport. Had there been any attempt to snppress it? We had given it 

 to the British Commissioners when at Washington, and they had it as 

 long as they wanted it. That shows there was no disi)osition to con- 

 ceal it. Why was not it printed? Not one iis five of these IJei)orts — 

 nay, not one in ten — are printed. If we could put in the letter that 

 accompanied this from the Secretary to tlie Treasury, you would find 

 out why it was not ])rinted. I cannot tell you and I cannot state the 

 reason without putting myself iu a position I should quite decline to 

 occupy, by attempting to make a statement not warranted by any evi- 

 dence in the case, because there is no evidence. If the lieport had 

 come in and become evidence in the case,* so that we could reply to it, 

 all this would have been shown. 



Mr. Elliott, whose knowledge on this subject I do not depreciate, is 

 far less of a man than my learned friends seem to have supposed. 

 They attach great importance to his having been a])pointed by the 

 Government, but of all the agents who have testified here, everyone 

 was ai)pointed under an Act of Congress. He was not specially 

 appointed any more than anybody else. One of the advantages of a 

 rei)ublican form of Government, is that men of moderate qualities are 

 not excluded from public offices. On the contrary, that is one of the 

 advantages we enjoy. Some Governments are deprived of the valuable 

 services of that class of men. We are not. 



The eminent jurist, Judge Swan, who throws some light upon the 

 subject, and Proiessor Elliott came into violent collision. Judge Swan 

 I)roceeds to reiute all Elliott's science, depreciate his ability, and 

 denounce liis motives; and if you take Swan's judicial estinmte of the 

 man, he would disapi)ear from the case at once. But as undoubtedly 

 Mr. Elliott would Imve something- to say in reply to Judge Swan, 1 do 

 not consider the Judge's opinion concdusive. What was the trouble? 

 Mr. Elliott had been connected, as Judge Swau said — and I think he 



