TWENTY-SIXTH DAY, MAY 24*^^, 1893. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Mr. President, yesterday when I was refer- 

 ring to the report of Mr. Elliott upon a point which I conceived affected 

 the consideration of the question of property in seals, I referred to him 

 as a man who was vouched by the United States as a great authority 

 on the seal question, and my learned friend Mr. Carter very i^roperly 

 challenged me upon that and asked me where he was so vouched. I 

 had not the reference at the moment at hand, but 1 promised that I 

 would refer to it this morning. As early in the discussion as the 4th 

 April, which seems now a long way back, at page 13 of the printed 

 Keport I referred to those authorities in a passage which runs thus: 



Mr. Elliott is a gentleman who in the diplomatic correspondence leading up to this 

 Treaty has been vouched by successive Ministers of the United .States as an authority 

 without any equal. Mr. Bayard, when he was Secretary of the United States, writing 

 upon the 7th of February, 1888, describes Mr. Elliott as " a well known authority on 

 seal life". That communication is to be found in the United States Appendix to 

 their Case, and I can give my friends the reference, if they have not it at hand. 

 Later, on the 1st of March, Mr. Blaine, who was tben Secretary of State in America, 

 on that date quotes Mr. Elliott again, in similar language, as an important authority 

 on seal life: and hu ally on the 3rd of Jnly 1890, Mr. Goff, Treasury Agent to the 

 United States, cites Mr. Elliott in this language : He says : " There is but one authority 

 on the subject of seal life", and he refers to Mr. Elliott as that one authority. 



That therefore is my justification for the reference which I yesterday 

 made. I have only to say in addition that this gentleman was, by a 

 special statute of Congress of the United States, appointed in the year 

 1890 for the purpose of making the very examination which resulted in 

 the Eeport from which I yesterday made certain extracts. At this 

 stage of the discussion, and in this connection, I say no more upon the 

 subject. 



There are one or two points to which I wish to refer in order to clear 

 up, possibly, a lingering doubt which may remain in the mind of Senator 

 Morgan, as to the question he put to me as to the paramount right of a 

 State in relation to property. I referred yesterday, and I think with 

 correctness, to the law of France and the law of England in ancient 

 days, founded on the feudal j)rinciple, as to grants of hunting and so 

 forth, being in the nature of royal franchises ; up to a certain period in 

 the history of both countries, these franchises were only conceded to 

 persons of a certain status. But I have since been thinking that the 

 learned Senator had in his mind the idea expressed by the words " emin- 

 ent domain": if any doubt remains that that has no connection 

 1001 with the question of property which we are here considering, I 

 would wish to clear it up. I can best illustrate that by giving a 

 concrete illustration of the law of eminent domain. Assume that the 

 owner of a given estate dies without heirs: by right of eminent domain 

 that estate would go to the Crown, according to the English law, but 

 it would go to the Crown with just the same rights and no more than 

 the original owner of the estate possessed; and applying it to the con- 

 ^-rete subject which we are here discussing namely, the question of 

 234 



