THE BERING-SEA CONTROVERSY. 85 



The first part of the argument of the American counsel before 

 the Paris Arbitration Tribunal consisted of a most suggestive half- 

 dozen pages, prepared by Mr. James C. Carter, in answer to the 

 question, " What law is to govern the decision? " Mr. Carter de- 

 clares that it must rest upon international law, which he defines as 

 the " general standard of justice upon which civilized nations are 

 agreed." This standard is fixed neither as to time nor place, and 

 depends largely on the character of the interests involved. Existing 

 as law without legislation, it controls and influences governments 

 much as public opinion influences individuals. Indeed, interna- 

 tional law may be considered as the public opinion of nations, and 

 like other public opinion it may be depended upon to support ex- 

 treme measures in extreme cases. 



If the claim of the United States regarding the evil consequences 

 of pelagic sealing are valid, and its absolute prohibition the only 

 means of preventing the annihilation of the fur-seal species, the 

 method of treatment adopted in 1886 and 1887 — being, in fact, that 

 followed by the Russian Government for many years — would be 

 entirely justifiable, provided the value of the species to mankind 

 was so great as to bring to such a policy the support of the public 

 opinion of nations. It is now too late to discuss this question, how- 

 ever, for the nation is in honor bound to respect and abide by the 

 Paris award, no matter how unreasonable and inadequate it may 

 be. It is difficult to see what good will come from further dis- 

 cussions, investigations, or declarations. Until the regulations 

 adopted at Paris are " abolished or modified by common agreement 

 between the Governments of the United States and of Great Brit- 

 ain " they must stand. 



Great Britain appears to be well satisfied with them, and ought 

 to be if they have so affected legitimate sealing on the islands that 

 "English interests in the fur-sealing industry now exceed Amer- 

 ican." 



The heroic treatment resting on asserted exclusive jurisdiction 

 and property rights, the basis of which was so strongly argued by 

 Mr. Justice Harlan and Senator Morgan at Paris, is now estopped 

 by the denial of such jurisdiction or rights in the decree of the 

 tribunal appealed to. The artifice of branding female seals, which 

 was to be resorted to extensively during the current season, will in 

 no way diminish the number taken at sea, for the brand can be 

 found only after the seal is killed, and it can not injure the skin 

 enough to make the business unprofitable. Besides, it is an expe- 

 dient hardly worthy the dignity of a great nation. Is it not the 

 part of wisdom, then, to accept the situation? Already the cost of 

 maintaining the struggle, the expense of commissions, policing fleets, 



