104 CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



tlie other it is tlie i)r()perty of any inau who can catch it, 

 can only be supported on the j:>roimd that JJehriiig Sea is 

 the domain of the United States, in other words, a mare 

 clausum. 



CLAIM INVOLVES MAKE CLAUSUM. 



It is, moreover, submitted that if seals before capture 



constitute special property, tlie lar(;eiiy of a seal ou 



1.3(5 the high seas by a vessel not belonging to the United 



States is not cognizable by the United States Courts, 



and that any claim to protection of seals beyond territorial 



jurisdiction must involve mare claHsiim. 



Whatever arguments may be brought forward in order 

 to induce other nations to concur in the adoption of Eegu- 

 lations limiting and interfering with their rights to fish 

 for and catch seals or other animals /e>'rt; naturcv upon the 

 high seas, no nation under the principles of law and the 

 practice among nations can, without the concurrence of 

 all interested Powers, interfere with vessels engaged in this 

 pursuit when outsideof the ordinary territorial jurisdiction. 



FREEDOM OF SEAL FISHEKIES ASSERTED BY UNITED STATES. 



The principle suggested in the question discussed in this 

 chapter has been steadily resisted by all nations. The 

 Government of the United States has more than once dis- 

 tinctly asserted the principle that the fur-seal fishery is 

 part of the ocean fishery, and free to all, beyond the 3-mile 

 limit. 



FALKLAND ISLANDS — CASE OF THE "HARRIET." 



In 1832 the United States scliooner " Harriet," Davison, 

 master, was seized by the Government of the Republic of 

 Buenos Ayres at the Falkland Islands 5 that Government 

 having claimed the right to capture and detain United 

 States vessels engaged in the seal fishery at the Malvinas 

 (Falkland Islands) and the islands and coasts adjacent to 

 Cape Horn. 



The United States Charge d' Affaires w^rote, on the 20th 

 June, 1832, to the Buenos Ayres Minister as follows: 



... Tli<i Umlersijjned is iustructed and authorized to say, — that 



BritiH h ami they iittei'ly deny the existence of any right in this Repnhlic to luter- 



Pape'^'by Hert^ I'^P*' "^f*^*^^*' detain or capture any vessels helougini;- to citizens of 



sl'et, vol. XX, p. the United States of America, or any persons heiug citizens of those 



'i'i5. States, engaged in taking seals, or whales, or any species of tish or 



marine animals, in any of the waters, or on anj' of the shores or lands, 



of any or either of the Falkland Islands, Tierra del Fuego, Cape Horn, 



or any of the adjacent islands in the Atlantic Ocean. 



On the lOtli July, 1832, the United States Charg6 

 d'Aff'aires wrote to the same Minister as follows: 



Ibid., ]). .U9. j^ij^ again — if it he admitted, Iiypothetically, that the Ai'gontine 



Repnhlic did succeed to tlie entire rights of Spain over these regions; 

 and that when she succeeded, Spain was possessed of sovereign rights — 

 the <]uc8tion is certainly worth examination, whether the right to 

 exclude Anaerican ves&els and American citizens from the hsheries 

 there, is incident to such a succession to sovereignty. 



FALKIAND ISLANDS SEAL FLSHKKIES. 



137 The ocean fishery is a natural right, which all nations may 



enjoy in couunou. Every interference with it hy a foreign 



Power, is a national wrong. When it is carried on within the marine 



