OEAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 307 



In fact, it will be found that we do not yet agree as to what is the 

 real issue between the parties to the controversy, except that Great 

 Britain has denied the right of the CTnited States to exercise dominion, 

 or jurisdiction, or sovereignty, as you please to call it, over the Bering 

 Sea; it is not easy to say what point of contention there is between 

 these two great nations. A law-suit has, generally, an objective point, 

 a result to be attained, something desired by one side and objected to 

 by the other — but here we hoth ivant the same thing. We both wish to 

 protect the seal, and we both agree that the race is dying out. You 

 may read this Treaty from the beginning to the end, and you may study 

 it in every form: it always conies back to this: these two nations want 

 to iind out how they may, without sacrifice of their rights on either 

 side, preserve a race which is conceded to be valuable to mankind. 

 Thus upon the principal point we agree, and, so far, it is simply a ques- 

 tion of means, for this High Court of Arbitration to find how to 

 preserve and ]>rotect thorn, thus satisfying, as far as the final result is 

 concerned, both ])arties to this controversy. That result was almost 

 attained by diplomacy. Mr. Phelps, the United States Minister in 

 London, had stated his proposition clearly and strongly to the Govern- 

 ment of Her Majesty, had lu'cn met in the fairest way, and a scheme 

 had been agreed upon, which at that time would have been as satis- 

 factory no doubt to the Government of the United States as to that of 

 Great Britain. I say "at that time", because such a settlement would 

 not be satisfactory at the present day. 



It is idle to deceive ourselves on either side as to one proposition, that 

 is that we have both learnt much upon this subject that we did not know 

 when the diplomatic correspondence was going on. Both parties sup- 

 posed that a certain protected zone — a large one — or a close season, as 

 ])roi)Osed,I think it was by Lord Salisbury, would satisfactorily protect 

 these animals. 



Mr. Phelps. — It was proposed by the United States Government 

 and assented to by Lord Salisbury. 



Mr. CouDERT. — Yes, proposed by the United States Government. 

 Perhaps a close season might be satisfactory as a means of protection, 

 but only on the ground stated by Mr. Carter that it would be so 

 effective as to amount to ])rohibitiou — a close season that would permit 

 pelagic sealing cannot prevent pelagic slaughter. Tlie very nature of 

 the business, however carried on, is of such a character thai the sealer 

 cannot discriminate, and if you start with that assumption which is 

 one of common knowledge and which my associate has so elotpiently 

 brought into the case, tiiat the only means to preserve the race is to 

 preserve the females — if you start with that, there is the end of the 

 pelagic industry so far as it deserves recognition or protection. The 

 preservation of the seals and pelagic sealing cannot exist at the same 

 time. And therefore if the sclieme agreed ui)on was such a scheme as 

 to permit pelagic sealing it was a faulty scheme. If it was such a one 

 as practically to prohibit it, it was good in substance, but it would 

 have been infinitely more satisfactory to adopt absolute prohibition. 



We have now reached the point when, through the exertions of both 

 nations and a willingness to adjust by diplomatic methods the differ- 

 ences between them, the matter was referred to Canada. In denouncing 

 pelagic sealing and pelagic sealers, of course, this High Tribunal will 

 understand that it is simply a denunciation of the business. It is a 

 denunciation that applies to two classes of men the Canadians and the 

 Americans. How numy of the Americans are engaged in this business 

 in violation of their national law on Canadian ships I do not know, but 



