ORAL ARGUMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. PHELPS. 43 



must be lost, if the seal race is to be destroyed. That is our claim ; and 

 it is the claim uot of individuals, as 1 shall have occasion to say more 

 distinctly hereafter, but of the United States Government, whose land 

 and industry and income this is, under whose law and under the super- 

 vision of whose otticers this business is carried on. It is a possession 

 that the law will protect; an industry, an interest, a right, that the 

 law of the world protects, unless it is assailed by somebody who has a 

 better right. 



My learned friends go into a fine spun argument. They ask, " what 

 is your property? Is it in the particular seal, that you may follow all 

 over the world f Is it in the herd? Can you have a i)roperty. in the 

 herd, if you have not a property in every one? What is its exact 

 nature, — how do you define it?" 



My friends who are so adversetogoingdown to the foundation of things 

 in another part of the case, are very anxious to get to the extreme 

 foundation in this case. What is the remote analysis"? There is not a 

 claim of property in the world but to the mind shallow enough to be 

 open to that sort of influence, can be reduced to the point of ridicule 

 by that process of reasoning. Human rights are not dealt with in that 

 way, I respectfully sulunit, in Courts of Justice, or in the estimation of 

 wise men. Our right is derived from all the fa(;ts and circumstances 

 of the case. They result in what is properly defined as "property". 

 What is the meaning of the term "property ?" It is a word of the widest 

 signification — of the most general api)lication; it a])plies to every inter- 

 est in every thing that is cajjable of appropriation and is valuable, 

 which is recognized bylaw. It maybe corporeal; it may be incorpo- 

 real. It may be capable of manual possession; it may beincaiiable. It' 

 may be aright; nothing but a right. It may be an interest, nothing 

 but an interest. The man who undertakes to define the term "prop- 

 erty", has a long way to go, and many things to consider. 1 have prop- 

 erty by the law of England, and by the law of one of the States of 

 America — though the general law of America is different — in the light 

 and in the air; I have a right in it, that the law will defend and protect. 

 In the very light and air of Heaven I have a property interest; and 

 my neighbour cannot on his own land, where he has a right to do every- 

 thing that a man may do lawfully, build a wall that shuts them out. I 

 have a right of way across my neighbour's land; perhaps limited to the 

 right to walk over it; perhaps to use it at a particular season of the 

 year only, or for a iiarticular purpose only — limited iii a thousand Avays, 

 or generally for all purposes. I cannot take possession of the land; 

 I cannot set foot on it for any other purpose, but I may walk over it, or 

 I may walk over it to a j)articular wood or to a particular ice-pond ? Is 

 not that property? I have a claim ui)on a man for damages for money 

 under a contract. Is it not property"? Now when you ask us to define 

 with a remote analysis the precise nature in the last resort of the prop- 

 erty interest that accrues to a nation in wild animals of this sort under 

 just such circumstances as are disclosed in this case, from which a valu- 

 able and civilizing industry has arisen and is carried on for the benefit 

 of the nation, and of the world at large as far as the production is valu- 

 able to human use — when my friends ask us to define for them what 

 that property right or interest is, I have a right to say, with great 

 respect: "Define it yourselves; that is not our business: Itisourbnsi- 

 ness to assert it; to show that by universal law it is recognized and 

 protected, and that it must be recognized and i)rotected unless such 

 product is to perish off the face of the earth." 



