AEGUMEISTS ON PRELIMINARY MOTIONS. 95 



respective paiti(?s would be drawn iuto seiious dispute; and the con- 

 tentions of the several parties were to be supported by such evidence 

 as they could obtain. 



The" President. — Perhaps we might stop here and resume a little 

 later. 



Mr. Carter. — Certainly, Sir. 



(The Tribunal thereupon adjourned for a short time.) 



Mr. Carter. — Mr. President, at the time when the Tribunal rose for 

 its recess, I was makino- some observations concerning the conditions 

 which this case presented at the time when it became necessary for the 

 X)arties to prepare their Cases. I had said that there were three prin- 

 cipal questions involved; that u])on the first of them, that relating to 

 the jurisdiction of the Unite:d States asserted to have been ac(iuired 

 from Kussia, there was not likely to be any conflict upon the evidence; 

 that upon the next question, that of property, there was likely to be a 

 great deal of conllict; and I pointed out some of the grounds upon 

 which it seemed probable that contlict would arise, and the extent of it. 

 Tiien there was the third question, that of regulations. Of course, the 

 determination of the regulations would involve a consideration of the 

 subject matter to Avhich it was designed that the regulations should be 

 applied, and that was to the seal herd, and the taking of seals; and this 

 question of regulations, therefore, depended precisely, as the qnestion 

 of property depended, upon the nature and habits of the seals, and the 

 modes by which they could be taken, and were usually taken, for the 

 purpose of being applied to the uses of commerce and the world. 



Those two questions, the question of pro])erty, and the question of 

 regulations, would de})end absolutely upon the same kind of evidence, 

 that is, evidence disclosing tlie nature and habitsof the animals, and the 

 modes in which they were taken. The questions themselves undoubt- 

 edly were entirely distinct. One was a question purely of property 

 right; the other was a question what regulations were necessary in the 

 absence of a property right, and where the seals could not be protected 

 by the exercise of any rightful power, without the concurrence of other 

 Governments;— what regulations with the concurrence of other Gov- 

 ernments were necessary to promote what was assumed to be a common 

 object, namely the preservation of the seals. The questions were 

 entirely difierent in their character, but, nevertheless, the evidence 

 upon which they depended was substantially the same. 



Now, the Government of the United States came to prepare its Case, 

 and the question arose how it should prepare it. Upon the first ques- 

 tion it was plain enough that the evidence upon which it dej^ended con- 

 sisted of the documents relating to the history of the liussian dominion 

 over Alaska, and to the various Treaties and diplomatic communications, 

 and other documents which from time tr time had made their appear- 

 ance in connection with that subject. As to the next question, that of a 

 l)roperty in the seals, it was necessary, of course, to place the facts upon 

 which we designed to sui)port our contention before the Tribunal. — 

 But how place them? By witnesses? No, we could not call any 

 before the Tribunal.— What must we do? We must resort to the best 

 evidence which under the circumstances was obtainable. That is the 

 rule in all judicial Tribunals, where one species of evidence deemed the 

 best is not to be procured for any reason, you must resort to the next 

 best. The only thing, therefore, Avas to consider what was next the best. 

 There was a variety of sources of evidence, such as the opinions of 

 scientific gentlemen, facts well known in natural history, all derivable 

 from books, which might properly enough be appealed to, but the imme- 



