70 ORAL ARGUMENT OF SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q. C. M. P. 



yet that this ground is not stated as a proposition by which Mr. Bayard 

 desires to bind either himself or his Government, niuch less is it an 

 afiirmation of any legal principle ui)on which he feels jnstiiied in tak- 

 ing his stand? And now, 1 repeat, is it not an jnnaziiig fact that the 

 despatch of Lord Salisbury, which 1 have venlnred to submit 



803 demolishes tlie only (^ase su<;gested, and su.ggested too by the 

 judicial record of the proceedings at Sitka, should iiave remained 



unanswered — I think it remains unanswered to this day — but renuiined 

 without any appearance of answer until the 22nd of January 1890, or 

 more than two years after its despatch? 



Now, I do not seek to be drawn into any bye-issues. As Lord Salis- 

 bury, who had succeeded to Lord Iddesleigh, believed, there had been 

 a breach of a promise made that no further seizures should be effected; 

 and Lord Salisbury records his statement that he had been so assured 

 in a letter of the 8th of April, 1888, which is to found at page 189 of 

 the large volume. It refers to an interview with Mr. Phelps, stating 

 that he was very anxious for despatch l)ecause of the destruction of the 

 species which was going on, and which he considered a matter of grave 

 moment ; and then he i)roceeds. 



He informed me, therefore, nuofificially, that he had received from Mr. Bayard a 

 private letter, from which lie read to me a passaije to the followinjr efl'ect: "I shall 

 advise that secret instructions bo given to American truizers not to molest British 

 sliips in Behring Sea at a distance from the shore, and this on the ground that the 

 negotiations for the establishment of a close time are going on." 



And then : 



But, Mr. Phelps added, there is every reason that this step should not become 

 public, as it might give encouragement to the destruction of seals that is taking })]a('e. 



And so forth. It is a bj^e-point, and I do not seek to dwell upon it. 

 There must have been some misunderstanding because, as a matter of 

 fact, we know that the seizures were renewed. 



Meanwhile, there is a change of Cxovernment in the United States, 

 and in March, 1889, President Harrison succeeds to President Grover 

 Cleveland ; and Mr. Blaine succeeds, as Secretary of State, to Mr. 

 Bayard. And I will only say that I have myself very little doubt (if I 

 may, for the moment, intrude a suggestion of that kind, which means 

 no disrespect to anybody) that judging from the tenor of Mr. Bayard's 

 communications and the position he took uj), and the executive action 

 that he authorised and directed, — I cannot doubt that if he had con- 

 tinued Secretary of State, we should have had the case settled as a 

 matter of common interest, and discussed as a matter of common 

 interest, to all the Nations ; and certainly some of the portions of the 

 claim now put forward never Avould have been heard of, because they 

 are inconsistent with the attitude which he himself, in his executive 

 capacity, took up. 



But Mr. Blaine, on the 22nd of January, wrote his celebrated despatch, 

 which is known as the contra bonos mores despatch ; and there is that 

 very great break, partly accounted for by the fact, I 

 of ^^conuT^^^^Vs admit, that negotiations were going on wiiich it was 

 more.s aigunicnt. hoped might cud the wliolc difliculty, but still I cannot 

 believe that if in the minds of tlie advisers of the United States there 

 had been present, even in a faint degree, the existence of definite legal 

 grounds u])on Avhich their action could be defended or justified, 



804 that we shouhl not have had some assertion of it at some time 

 or other in answer to these communications of Lord Iddesleigh, 



in the first instance, and Lord Salisbury, in the second. On the 22nd 

 of January comes this despatch; and I will just notice, in passing, 



