322 ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON, EDWARD J. PHELPS. 



thresliold of this whole matter the thing that we claim is so comi)letely 

 ours, and it is so necessary to the interest of the world as well as of our 

 own that it should be ours, that when, by some ingenious argument 

 you deprive us of the right, then at once you set about to compel the 

 other nations to join and enforce the very thing that we have no riglit 

 to do against their will. If they had the common interest which should 

 induce them to come forward voluntarily as they did in their original 

 agreement and say, we share in this necessity and therefore are willing 

 to contribute to it, that would be different. But here they are struggling 

 to the last, if this comes to Eegalations, in every conceivable way to 

 make the Regulations worthless — to limit them in time, in space, in 

 manner of enforcement, in every way in the world; no ingenuity can 

 propose a suggestion that would emasculate such Eeguhitious of all 

 force, that you have not been entertained with. Can anything more 

 clearly illustrate the utterly preposterous theory — I say it very res])ect- 

 fully — preposterous in its result, on which this whole debate ])r()ceeds? 

 Either the seals are necessary and proper to be preserved on the ter- 

 ritory under the jurisdiction where they belong, under the circum- 

 stances where they are found, for the purpose for which you i)reserve 

 them, that is, to enable the United States to administer this industry — 

 or they are not. It is either so, or not so. If so, the right of the 

 United States results inevitably from that state of things. If not so, 

 upon what theory are you going to force another nation against its will 

 to ado])t regulations for our benefit? 



The President. — I am afraid you put the case a little far, because 

 we cannot admit the English Government is not wishing to preserve 

 and protect properly the fur-seal, in or habitually resorting to lieluing 

 Sea, after the British Government has signed a Treaty to that effect in 

 virtue of which we here sit. 



Mr. Phelps. — That depends. Sir, with much respect, upon whether 

 you read the Treaty or listen to my learned friends. I have endeav- 

 oured to point out the wide discrepancy "between the profession and 

 the practice; between the promise and the performance. TheTr<Mty 

 does go upon that stipulation; but what is the argument here? Why, 

 my learned friend, Mr. Robinson, perhai)s not noticing the force of his 

 observation, says. If you do so and so we should be worse off than if we 

 accorded the right to you. We should lose everything, and still be 

 charged with helping to mount guard over the interests we have been 

 dejmved of We should be worse off in the interests for which we have 

 been contending, Avhich he has been frankenoughto say is the business 

 of pelagic sealing. — If you take the Treaty, the correspondence and the 

 instructions, you find two nations met in a common purpose; and no 

 man can give a reason why they require any assistance in accomplish- 

 ing that common purpose, if they are at one with regard to it. — l>ut 

 when you come to take the proceedings before this Tribunal, you find 

 nothing is more ingeniously and earnestly opposed, from every possible 

 point of view, than the adoption of any regulation that would really 

 effect the very purpose for which in theory, and under the i)rovisioJis 

 of this Treaty, the Tribunal is assembled. 



The President. — It means they do not agree as to means. 



Mr. Phelps. — It is more than that. It turns out from their discus- 

 sion that we are so far disagreed with reference to the means that we 

 are disagreed with reference to the obje(!t. I submit that to your con- 

 sideration without further observation, which would not elucidate it 



I had designed to mention, but at this late hour I shall not go back 

 to discuss, one tojuc that I had omitted in its order, because at its 



