ARGUMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN. 35 



The Claim to Protection apart from Property. 



The United States, assuiuing that their chiiiu to property 

 fails, endeavour to establisli an independent right to j^ro- 

 tect the seals on the high seas. 



This is a contention wholly devoid of legal authority. 



EIGHT OF A GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT. 



The right of a Government to protect the property of 

 its subjects must rest on the same principles as the rights 

 of an individual. 



Such rights as the United States may possess to protect 

 the seals are dependent on the existence of property in 

 them. 



RIGHT RATIONE SOLI DOES NOT mPORT RIGHT OFF 

 THE LAND. 



The exclusive right to take possession of animals on land, 

 dealt with in the preceding argument, does not cany with 

 it a right to protect such animals when they leave the land. 



WHICH WOULD CONFLICT WITH RIGHTS OF OTHERS ON 

 HIGH SEA. 



The right of all nations to fish on the high seas is 

 37 inconsistent with the claim of any nation to i3rotect 

 fish or other free-swimming animals there. 

 The contingency that fewer seals may resort to the 

 United States islands in consequence of the exercise of 

 this riglit of fishing on the high sea cannot affect that rjglit, 

 nor entitle the United States to claim that it should be less 

 freely exercised. 



RIGHT TO PROTECT APART FROM CLAIM OF PROPERTY. 



The United States, however, insist that they have such 

 a right of protection of the seals, in the open waters of the 

 Pacific, independently of the claim to a right of j)roperty 

 in the seals. Tlie claim of right thus advanced is novel 

 and un})recedented. 



It is obvious that this question is in no way connected 

 with or dependent on the question of concurrent regula- 

 tions. 



An abstract right of protection (such as is here claimed), 

 distinct from a right of property in the animal sought to 

 be ])rotected, cannot exist. It would involve the right to 

 make the protection respected, and tlierelore an interfer- 

 en<;e with the equality and indo])endence of other imtions 

 upon the high seas; an interference which must take tlie 

 concrete form of a right of visit and search. That such 

 rights do not generally exist in time of peace, except in 

 the case of piracy, is too elementary a proposition to need 

 demonstration. Pelagic seaUng is not piiacy. 



