ARGUMENTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 139 



The President — Mr. Phelps, is it within your Iciiowledge (as Sir 

 Charles Russell has just alluded to it) that it was in the view of both 

 Governments to have at any rate an Arbitration upon the legal points 

 if not upon the Regulations'? 



Mr. Phelps. — I think not. 



The President. — That is a matter of fact upon which I ask you for 

 information. 



Mr. Phelps. — ^1 think no Arbitration was originally contemplated 

 on any of these questions of right for this obvious reason. The nego- 

 tiations in 1887 and 1888 had reference exclusively to the protection of 

 the seal. Only when these failed were the claims of right brought 

 forward. If these had not failed it could have been of no possible 

 importance to the two nations to discuss these claims or to have them, 

 decided. 



Sir Charles Russell. — How is the question of damage to be 

 ascertained? 



Mr. Phelps. — I will allude to that in a moment. An Arbitration is 

 as entirely unimportant unless it became necessary for the protection of 

 the seal. If the two Governments had come together, and had adopted 

 a system of Regulations which both regarded as satisfactory and suffi- 

 cient, then it would be idle farther to debate whether the United States 

 Government had a right of property in the seals which it would become 

 unnecessary to enforce. And it would be idle to discuss whether they 

 had derived from Russia certain special jurisdiction to these water 

 rights because they did not need them for any other purpose. And as 

 to any question of damages which had then arisen, if the main subject 

 of the controversy, the protection of the seals, had been disposed of, it 

 is not conceivable that the comparatively small amount in dispute would 

 have given the Government any concern. They would have agreed 

 about that in a moment, if they had agreed about the rest. As you 

 will perceive, and as you will perceive still more clearly when we come 

 to argue the merits of the case, this discussion in 1887 began by a pro- 

 posal on the part of the United States. 



Sir Charles Russell. — This is rather going beyond the point I 

 think. 



Mr. Phelps. — I am answering only the President's question about a 

 proposal for a convention that would i^rovide for the jjrotection of the 

 Seal; it comprehended nothing else, and, as we shall contend, that 

 was acceded to on the part of Great Britain, and Regulations were 

 prepared and provisionally agreed upon, and then the objection of 

 Canada was interposed and that fell to the ground. In the whole 

 course of that you will see that no question of damages was raised. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Oh! really, Mr. Phelps; I must distinctly 

 dissent from that. 



Mr. Phelps. — I am speaking of what I personally know. 



Sir Charles Russell. — Then, Mr. President, I challenge my 

 learned friend, Mr Pheljis, to refer to any document in which Great 

 Britain ever receded from the position of claiming compensation for 

 what she alleged to be illegal seizures, or any paper in which the 

 United States said they M-ere, if Regulations were agreed to, ready to 

 pay compensation in respect of those illegal seizures. 



The President. — That is not quite the purport of what Mr. Phelps 

 said. 



Mr. Phelps. — No, Sir, it is not. I said that when, under the instruc- 

 tions of my Government, I introduced this subject in 1887, the sole 

 proposition made on the part of the United States was for a Conven- 



