Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1893-07-14
Boring Sea.
Hon. Il. j. Phelps's Lucid and COmpre-
hensive Argument.
From the Burlington Free Press.


From the Burlington Free Press
In his address before the Boring Sea
court of arbitration, ex-Minister Phelps
disregarded the great mass of detail which
encountered much of the previous argu-
ments before the arbitrator, and gave es-
| pecial prominence to the real questions 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 pre-
sents only two main questions, 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 con-
tinue destroying the seal species, and what
regulations are necessary to prevent the ex-
termination of the seals. Mr.. Phelps de-
MED that the United States wished to de-
clare Boring sea a mare clausum, and said
that the seizures of pelagic sealing vessels
were effected under the American claim of
of the United States in the seals in her
territory and in the industry founded on
the seals constituted property right which
was entitled to the protection of municipal
and international law, and the proposition
of the United States was obviously just
and right.
Speaking in relation to the subject of
the rights of property Mr.. Phelps insisted
that according to municipal law all useful
wild animals that have subjected them
selves or have been subjected to human
control on land to which they have a con-
slant disposition to return, and on which
they constitute the basis of industry, be-
came to a certain extent the property of
the citizens of that land. Under the pro-
visions of international law, also, marine
animals becoming the basis of an industry
in maritime territory must be regarded as
a species of property belonging to the per-
sons controlling this territory. Such prop
erty, he said, had hitherto been held sacred
by general consent of civilized nations.
In disproving the testimony of the Bril-
fish commissioners and furriers to the eff
feet that interminglng of seal herds occurs
and it is therefore impossible to claim ex-
elusive ownership, Mr.. Phelps held that
the evidence was conclusive that the herds
did not mix with each other, and that the
British claim that the Pribyloff Islands
seals winteIed 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
evidence, he said, supported the American
assertion that seals were begotten, born
| and reared on the islands, remaining there
seven months in the year, and returning
there with unfailing regularity. : These
facts, coupled with the protection of the
husbandry of seals, gave to the United
States such property in the herds as en-
titled the government to protect the species
against determination as well as the en-
croachments of foreign sealers. Ed
Mr.. Phelps did not confine himself to a
mere assertion of this right, but in analyz-
ing 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 en-
titled to protect them, instancing in sup
port of his contention the British coral and
pearl-oyster fisheries, 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 a strong case for the United
States and won new distinction, as well as
increased recognition of his ability as
lawyer and diplomat.