26 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES G. CARTER, ESQ. 



The Rnssiiin ambassador concurs, so far as Lis personal opinion is concerned, in 

 tlie propriety of tlie jiroposod nieaHiires for tlie protection of tlie seals, and has 

 promised to communicate at once ^\ ith his Government in rc<:;ard to it. I have fur- 

 nished him with copies of instructions 782 for the use of his Government. 

 I have, etc., 



E. J. Phelps. 



Tlie learned Arbitrators will perceive from Mr. Phelps' note that the 

 pro])osed close time exteiidiiig over the area between 170 ]']ast longi- 

 tnde and 100 West longitn<le, and beginning at' the OOth i)arallel of 

 latitnde, and inclnding everything North, was at once assented to, and 

 that pelagic sealing within that area was to be prohibited between 

 April 15th and November 1st. 



Of course, I do not nnderstand from this note that Mr. Phelps inti- 

 mated that the agreement was absolutely iinal, so that it might be put 

 in the form of a treaty or convention : but only that the proposition of 

 Mr. Bayard containing that measure of restriction was at once assented 

 to by Lord Salisbury without objection, although further communica- 

 tions might be needful before the measure was put in the shape of a 

 treaty, nor do I inean to intimate that Mr. I'helps states that the 

 agreement was an absolute one, precluding any withdrawal from it. 



Mr. Bayard again addresses Mr. lM)eli)s on the lind of March, 1888, 

 and in this communication he acknowledges the receipt, not of the last 

 letter that I read, but of the one prior to that, of February 18, 1888: 



Mr. Bayard to Mr. ritclps. 



N". 810.] DEPARTArRNT OF StaTe, TVasliinfflon, March 2, ISSS. 



Sill: I have to acknowledge the receipt of your No. 690, of the IStli ultimo, in 

 relation to the Alaslvan seal lislieries, and have ]deasure in observing the prompti- 

 tude with wliicli the l>usiness has been conducted. 



It is li(>])ed that Lord Salisbury will give it favorable consideration, as there can 

 be no doul)t of the importance of preserving the seal iisheries in Behring Sea, and 

 it is also desirable that this should be done by an arrangement between the govern- 

 ments interested, witliout tlie United States l)eing called upon to consider wliat 

 special measures of its own the exceptional character of the ])r()perty in question 

 miglit require it to take in case of the refusal of foreign powers to give their coop- 

 eration. 



Wliether legislation would be necessary to enable the United States and Great 

 Britain to carry out measures for the protection of the seals would depend much 

 upon the character of the regulations; Ijut it is probable that legislation would be 

 required. 



The manner of protecting the seals would depend upon the kind of arrangement 

 which Great Britain would be willing to make with tlie United States for the polic- 

 ing of the seas and for the trial of British subjects violating the regulations which 

 the two Governments may agree upon for such protection. As it appears to this 

 'Government, the commerce carried on in and about Behring Sea is so limited in 

 •variety and extent that the present ettorts of this Government to protect the seals 

 need not be complicated by considerations which are of great imjiortance in high- 

 ways of connuerce and render the interference by the officers of one Government 

 with the merchant vessels of another on the high seas inadmissible. But even in 

 regard to those parts of the globe where commerce is extensively carried on, the 

 United States and Great Britain have, for a common purpose, abated in a measure 

 tlieir objection to such interference and agreed that it might be made by the naval 

 vessels of either country. 



Reference is made to the treaty concluded at Washington on the 7th of April, 

 1862, between the United States and Great Britain for the sup])rcssion of the slave 

 trade, under which the joint policing of the seas by the naval vessels of the con- 

 tracting parties was provided for. In this convention no l^uitatiou was imposed as 

 to the part of the high seas of the world in which visitation and search of the 

 merchant vessels of one of the contracting parties miglit be made by a naval vessel 

 of the other party. In the present case, however, the range within which visita- 

 tion .-ind search would be required is so limited, and the commerce there carried on 

 8o insiguilicant, that it is scarcely thought necessary to refer to the slave-trade 

 convention for a precedent, nor is it deemed necessary that the performance of police 

 duty Jiboiild be by the naval vessels of the contracting parties. 



