The Bennington banner. [volume] (Bennington, Vt.) 1858-1894, 1893-07-21
MR. PHELPs,s BER1NG ADDRESS.

Mr.. PHELPS'S BERING ADDRESS.
The addresses made by the representa-
tives of England and the United States
before the Boring sea board of arbitra-
ton have attracted the attention of the
! civilized world on account of the marked
ability and powers exhibited, as we'll as
the general interest in the controversy.
1t must be with peculiar pleasure, there
| fore, that the people of the United
States and residents of Vermont in par
ticular are called upon to note the words
of commentator and praise bestowed
upon the address of Hon. Edward j.
Phelps, ex-United States minister to
England, delivered in closing the case
for our government before the commits
sioners. Those who have followed Mr..
Phelps's speech cannot have failed to be
| impressed with the wisdom which has
marked his plan of treatment; the skill
with which he has marshalled his facts
aud arguments; and the clearness and
strength of his presentation of the case
of the United States as opposed to Eng
land.
In his address ex-Minister Phelps dis
regarded the great mass of detail which
encountered much of the previous argu-
ments before the arbitrators and gave
especial prominence to the real ques-
| tions at issue before the tribunal. His
address, therefore, affords an admirably
clear and concise idea of the claims of
our country in relation to the whole seal
question and of the grounds upon which
| those claims are based. He holds that
the case presents only two main ques-
tons, namely, whether the Canadians
and the renegade Americans who sought
the shelter of the British flag in order to
defy the laws of their own country have
the right to continue destroying the seal
species, and what regulations are neces-
sary to prevent the determination of the
seals. Mr.. Phelps denied that the Unit
ed States wished to declare Bering sea a
mare clausum, and said that the seizures
of Pelagic sealing vessels were effected
under the American claim of the right
to protect the seals The interest of the
United States in the seals in her terrific
~ and in the industry founded on the
seals constituted a property right which
was entitled to the protection of munich
pal and international law, and the prop
osition of the United States was obvi-
ously just and right.
Speaking in relation to the subject of
the rights of property, Mr.. Phelps insist
ed that according to municipal law all
|
themselves, or have been subjected to
human .ntrol on land to which they
have a constant disposition to return and
on which they constitute the basis of in
dustry, become to a certain extent the
property of the citizens of that land.
Under the provisions of international
| law also, marine animals becoming the
basis of an industry in maritime terri
tory must be regarded as species of
property belonging to the persons con-
trolling this territory. Such property,
he said, had hitherto been held sacred
by general consent of civilized nations.
In disproving the testimony of the
British commissioners and furriers, to
the effect that intermingling of seal
herds occurs and it is therefore impossi-
BILE to claim exclusive ownership, Mr..
Phelps held that the evidence was con-
elusive that the herds did not mix with
each other, and that the British claim,
that Prlbyloff Islands seals wintcred on
the British Columbian coast, was not
supported by the evidence, and the claim
was directly opposed to the migratory
habits of seals. All trustworthy evil
dence, he said, supported the American
assertion that seals were begotten, born
and reared on the islands, remaining
| there seven months III the year, ana re-
turning there with unfalling regularity
These facts, coupled with the protection
of the husbandry of seals, gave to the
United States such property in the herds
as entitled the government to protect the
species against determination as
well as the encroachments of foreign
sealers.
Mr.. Phelps did not confne himself to
mere assertion of this right, but, in
Analysing the international law bearing
on the case, he showed that all marine
animals in which there was property
interest were treated as property by the
nations best entitled to protect them,
instancing in support of his contention
the British coral and pearl-oyster fisher
les, which, though they were outside of
territorial waters, it was absolutely
necessary to protect in ORDER to prevent
them from being exterminated. He
made out strong case for the United
States and won new distinction, as well
as increased recognition of his ability as
a lawyer and diplomatist,-Free Press.