316 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



best one, tl)e jndieious one, the true one, or tliat the differenee bet^veen 

 40 and o.j is inevitable. We sinii)ly suj>gest that as a proi)er boundary, 

 as a just one, as a fair one, not meaning, of course, to say with the eon- 

 lidence with which I have said some things here, that it is absolutely 

 uecessary to go to that extent. 



A few words, and but a few on another topic, connected with the 

 Eegulatious — namely, their enforcement. I misunderstood, owing to 

 not having had the advantage of leading my learned friend's remarks 

 yesterday, what he had proposed, and for that 1 should apologize. I 

 consider the case npon what 1 understand now that he does propose, 

 and that is, that a vessel seized for violation of any Regulations that 

 the Tribunal should imjwse and the conntry should adopt, should be 

 handed to the British authorities to be dealt with. The error I made 

 was that, instead of handing over the vessels, we were to make appli- 

 cation and complaint in respect of them. Our Kegulation, on the other 

 hand, provides for the seizing of such infringing vessel and taking her 

 into the ports of the United States to be proceeded with in Courts 

 invested with such jurisdiction by our Statutes on the principle of what 

 is known as prize law. All lawyers understand that the principles of 

 prize law do not exclude the nation to whose citizens the seized vessel 

 belongs. It condemns the vessel, but it does not exclude the nation 

 from asserting a claim based upon the charge that the vessel was improp- 

 erly condemned. If we seize a vessel and take her into the United 

 States the jurisdiction is in the Federal Courts, and the vesting of this 

 jurisdiction, as our Constitution does every jurisdiction which may atfect 

 international relations with another country, in the Federal Courts, 

 is a very wise one for the purpose of securing other nations against 

 being affected by the action of local Judges or Jurors or-the pressure 

 of local prejudice or sectional feeling. 



It is proposed on the other hand, and this is all that we are at issue 

 about, that if we seize a vessel, instead of taking lier to our own port, 

 we shall take her to a British Port; that is the ditference. 



That the Courts of other nations would proceed in good faith in the 

 judgment they would render is a matter of course. We do not assume 

 that the justice to be done by the Federal Courts would not be done by 

 the Courts of British Columbia, or whatever the province was, but the 

 same point arises that arose between Great Britain and Russia and was 

 set forth by Mr. Chichkine in which this was debated. You seize a 

 vessel in Behring Sea. You can do nothing but make a long voyage to 

 British Columbia. There is no port nearer than that. You have to 

 dispatch a vessel that ought to be on guard there, doing duty, to carry 

 that vessel through the sea a voyage of I do know how many thousand 

 miles. There is a practical difficulty in the way of that. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — I am bound to point out to my learned 

 friend that that difficulty has been met, by the legislation of the two 

 countries concerned. It can only be effected by the legislation of the 

 two countries. 



The modus vivendi between Russia and Great Britain has been given 

 effect to by legislation, which was only passed a few days ago, indeed 

 it was when I was in London the other day, and a substitute is pro- 

 vided under the act and if it is not convenient to hand over a British 

 vessel seized by Russian authority to a British authority, then the 

 papers or vessel may be transmitted and action taken on them by Brit- 

 ish authority. 



Mr. Phelps. — In its jiractical result it comes exactly to what I 

 understood my learned friend as having proposed in the first instance. 



