ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 31 



the land in respect of which the right arises, such violation 

 can occur only while the animals are on the land, as by a 

 trespasser taking possession of them. 



RAIDING. 



Such a violation is committed by raiders on the islands, 

 and the property in the seals taken by them is in the 

 United States, 



CASES PUT BY THE UNITED STATES. 



With reference to the cases put by Mr. Phelps and Mr. united states 

 Blaineof killing fish by scattering poison in the sea, destroy- voLt pp^sol^m 

 ing them by dynamite, and placing dangerous obstructions 

 and derelicts in the sea to injure commerce or fisheries, it 

 is denied that they present any aiuilogy to the case now 

 under discussion, which is simply that of fishing by lawful 

 methods. 



THIS IS A QUESTION OF RIVAL TRADING MERELY. 



All persons alike possess the riglit of fishing on the high 

 sea, and such fishing, even though it diminish the catch of 

 another, is in all resj^ects analogous to the case of rival 

 traders. 



WHICH THE LAW PERMITS. 



There is no principle of law in the United States or Great 

 Britain which prohibits rival trading, or gives redress to 

 that one of the traders who may suflfer loss in his trade by 

 his rival's exertions. 



The exercise of the right to catch the seals on the high 

 sea is a rival trade to the exercise of the right to catch the 

 seals on land. This latter right is of the same character 

 as the former: it only dilfers by reason of its being exclu- 

 sive while the seals are on the land. 



NO MALICE ALLEGED. 



No act of malice towards the United States or the les- 

 sees of the Pribylofts has been, or could be, alleged against 

 the fishermen of Great Britain whose vessels have been 



seized. The seals are taken by them on the high sea 

 33 for their profit, and in the exercise of their legal 



rights of fishing possessed by them in common with 

 all mankind. 



PRINCIPLE OF LAW APPLICABLE. 



The case therefore falls within the general principle, that 

 where loss results to one by the lawful exercise of a right 

 possessed by another, no reparation can be obtained by 

 law. 



It is, therefore, submitted that any rights which the 

 Uuited States possess are not violi^ted by the acts of fiah- 



