10 ARGUMENT OF GHEAT BftlTAm. 



Again, the claim is to the increase of the seal as to tlie 

 shee])-faimer is given the increase of his flock. The law 

 deals with the increase of the flock; and the increase of 

 wild animals it deals with too. 



"An industry the j^roperty of the nation on whose shores 

 it is carried on" — such is the form in which the United 

 States claim is presented by one of its ablest advocates, a 

 form which evades the most elementary questions as to the 

 foundation, the nature, and the extent of the rights so 

 claimed. 



The whole case, and every part of it, and every form in 

 whi<'h ingenuity can frame it, are covered by the law. And 

 to this law Her Majesty's Government most confidently 

 appeal. 



And there is another law to which that Government 

 appeal with equal confidence — the law on which depends 

 the freedom of the sea. 



What is the freedom of the sea? 



The right to come and go upon the high sea without let 

 or hindrance, and to take therefrom at will and pleasure the 

 produce of the sea. It is the right whi<;h the United States 

 and Great Britain endeavoured, and endeavoured 

 8* successfully, to maintain against the claim of Russia 

 seventy years ago. it is the right in defence of 

 which, against excessive claims of other nations, the argu- 

 ments of the United States have in former times held so 

 prominent a place. 



And what is this claim to protect the seal in the high 

 sea? It is, as of right and for all time, to let and hinder 

 the vessels of all nations in their pursuit of seals u])on the 

 high sea; to forbid them entrance to those vast seas which 

 the United States have included in the denomination of 

 the " waters of Alaska;" to take from these vessels the 

 seals they have lawfully obtained ; and to search, seize, and 

 condemn the vessels and the crews, or with show of force 

 to send them back to the ports from which they set out. 



And so, according to the contention of the United States, 

 " protection of an industry " at sea justifies those acts of 

 high authority which by the law of nations are allowed 

 only to belligerents, or against pirates with whom no nation 

 is at peace. 



From giving its high sanction to these views this Tribu- 

 nal may well shrink ; and it is with no mere idle use of 

 high-sounding phrase that Great Britain once more appears 

 to vindicate the freedom of the sea. 



This, then. Her Majesty's Government submit is the issue 

 raised by the dispute, an issue which they leave with con- 

 fidence in the bands of this Tribunal. Were the British 

 vessels right or wrong? If the United States Congress 

 could by the law of nations legitimately pass this Statute 

 to bind foreign vessels upon the high seas, they were wrong 

 in refusing to obey; but if Congress could not legitimately 

 bind foreign vessels, their seizure was unjustifiable, and 

 their owners must be compensated. 



But there is another aspect of the question to which (the 

 legal questions having been decided in favour of Great 



