ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 377 



Sir Charles Eussell. — Their case was not based on that ground 

 at tliat time. You will hear the reason why they did not suggest it. 



The President. — Mr. Carter discussed at some length the catches 

 of seals which have taken place on the IS^orth West coast; so the mat- 

 ter is a question of interest and has a close connection with the 

 American Case. 



Mr. Coudert. — In the first place let me say if you read Mr. Phelps' 

 letters you will find that he did claim. . . 



The President. — That is what I want to know. 



Mr. Coudert. — You will find that he did claim that there was great 

 destruction of the seals on the North Pacific, as well as in Behring Sea 

 and he claimed that it should be stop])ed. 



Senator Morgan. — That was Lord Salisbury's proposition. 



Sir Charles Eussell.— Yes, that they would not consent to. 



General Foster. — Because Canada would not allow us to do so. 



Mr. Coudert. — Perhaps we were right — perhaps we were wrong. 



Sir Charles Eussell. — You were claiming territorial sovereignty 

 over Behring Sea, and you said you had no authority outside. 



Mr. Coudert. — We were claiming territorial sovereignty, and that is 

 what we are claiming to-day, and the record shows it. 



Mr. Phelps' letters shew it, and our case states the fiict just as we 

 are stating it to day, and gives references in order to show this is not a 

 new idea; and the Treaty, (which is the law of this Tribunal) says what 

 we claimed and what we claim to day. I also state in all frankness, that 

 this subject was not so thoroughly understood, and the great destruc- 

 tion which was reaped on this flock was not so well measured a few 

 years ago, as to day. 



The question is not one of estoppel on the United States. Conced- 

 ing for the sake of argument, if you please, that we did not demand 

 enough, what do both nations want to-day*? That is the question. 



Thev want to stop the destruction of this herd, and how are you 

 to do It? 



Senator Morgan. — It is the professed object of the Treaty. 



Mr. CouDEET. — It is the professed object of the Treaty. 



Mr. Justice Harlan. — It is not so much what both nations desire, 

 but rather what they ought to have. 



Mr. Coudert. — When 1 use the word "want", I mean that, in the 

 sense of properly asking — properly requiring, and I do not think it is 

 worth while to answer — (of course, I say it with all respect to my friends 

 on the other side) — the suggestion that we did not ask enough at the 

 time. The question to-day upon the facts is 



Sir Charles Eussell. — That was not my observation. 



Mr. Coudert. — The question on the facts is, what we ought to have 

 in. order to carry out the joint purpose of the two nations — That is, 

 the preservation of an important industry; and if we did not know 

 then 



The President. — What I meant to say was that your conclusions 

 now, and your demand now, — what you require now — goes much fur- 

 ther than what you asked for, or what, at least, has been expressed in 

 the modus vivendi. There is a sort of contradiction between the exten- 

 sion you give now to your present requirements, and what has been put 

 into the Treaty as the modus vivendi. That is merely what I want to 

 call attention to — nothing more. 



Mr. Coudert. — I am much obliged to the President of the Tribunal, 

 and I can only answer it in this way 



The President. — There is a certain diflSculty which I think it is 

 useful for you to bring to light. 



