APPENDIX TO CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 349 



that the members of the Alaska Commerciiil Company, which has the 

 monopoly of seal-catching on and near tliePribylott" Islands, can plead, 

 in f omul pauperis^ for protection on grounds of charity. 



It may be argued that, since most of the seals which are taken by the 

 British breed on our soil in the Pribyloff Islands, we have an exclusive 

 claim to them in the sea, or at any rate a right to protect them there 

 from extinction. But some of tbem breed on Copper Island and Behring 

 Island, both of which belong to Eussia. How is it possible to main- 

 tain any claim to ownership in seals on the high seas under a!iy prin- 

 ciple of law api)licable to wild animals'? We can acquire no property 

 rights in animals fenc naturte from their birth on our soil, except for 

 the time that we hold them in our possession. A claim by Canada to 

 the wild ducks hatched in her territory, after the birds have passed 

 her boundary, would seem to be just as valid as ours to seals in the 

 open sea. 



I recall only one case which seems to furnish any analogy for the 

 claim that we may regulate seal fishing in the open waters of Behring 

 Sea. The British Government does regulate and control the pearl 

 fisheries in the open sea from 8 to 20 juiles west of the northern end of 

 Ceylon. But it is to be presumed that this is done under sufl'erance of 

 other Powers, because they have had no interest in interfering with the 

 pursuit of the pearl divers. Should they claim the right to seek 

 pearls in those waters, it is not easy to see how Great Britain could 

 oppose any argument except that of long acquiescence by_them in 

 her exclusive possession of the j)earl grounds; and it is questionable 

 whether that argument would have much weight. 



It may be said that if we have no right to exclude other nations from 

 taking seals in the open watei-s of Behring Sea, and if the Law and the 

 Treasury Begulations, as they now stand, can be enforced against our 

 own citizens in those same open waters, we are clearly discriminating 

 against our own countrymen. The foreigners may kill seals at times 

 and in places forbidden to us. This is true. It is one of the anomalies 

 and embarrassments of the present situation. 



On the whole, we find no good ground on whi(;h we can claim as a 

 right the exclusion of foreigners from the open waters of Behring Sea 

 for the purpose of protecting the seals. If \vc have any good ground, 

 and are determined to stand on it, then we ought to proceed with more 

 vigour in maintaining our policy. To send one little revenue-steamer, 

 carrying a small crew, into Behring Sea, and to dispatch on each of 

 the cajitured vessels one man, a common seaman, as a prize crew or 

 commanding officer, is simply absurd. Each of the vessels seized, 

 instead of coming within the jurisdiction of a United States Court, 

 goes to a British port, files its claim for damage with the British 

 authorities, and prepares for another voyage to the same waters in 

 which it was captured. If, however, we have no right to seize for- 

 eign vessels in the open waters of Behring Sea, then we ought to lose 

 no time in negotiating with the interested Powers, especially Great 

 Britain, Eussia, and Japan, on the best method of preserving the seals 

 from extermination, and of securing to ourselves what we have a right 

 to retain. Those Powers showed, in the correspondence carried on 

 with them by Secretary Bayard, their entire willingness to come to 

 some understanding on the matter. It is so obviously for the 

 96 interest of tlie above-named States that the seals should not be 

 exterminated that it cannot be difficult to make some satisfactory 

 adjustment of the question. The limits of this article compel brevity 

 in treating the question of determining the boundary between Alaska 



