10 FINAL REPORT OF THE AGENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 



The case of tlie United States liad established the following- facts: 



That the fur seals which were the subject of this arbitration were 

 begotten, born, and reared on the Pribilof Islands, owned by the United 

 States; that they made these islands their home and had, so far as it is 

 known, always done so; that they spent a large part of each year on 

 these islands ; that when they left them on their annual migration it was 

 with the fixed intention to return to them, whicli tiiey did with unvary- 

 ing regularity, never resorting to any otlier land; that tliey were 

 domestic in their habits and voluntarily jjlaced themselves v\iien on the 

 islaiuls within the control of man; that the existence of the race 

 depended upon the care, industry, and forbearance practiced by the 

 United States toward them, and that but for the protection given them 

 by the United States the race would be destroyed; that the United 

 States alone could take the increase of the seal herd without dimin- 

 ishing the stock, since it could make the necessary discrimination as 

 to sex and age when taking the seals on the islands for commercial 

 purposes; and that the taking of the seals in tlie sea was necessarily 

 Avithout discrimination as to sex, was wastei'iil, and would result in 

 destroying the race. 



Upon these facts the counsel for the United States contended that, 

 as the seals could not possibly be i>roserved excei)t by according a 

 right of property in them to the United States, the law ought to and 

 did recognize such right of property, and, consequently, the right of 

 protection claimed by our Government. Their propositicm was, sub- 

 stantially, that wherever any uselul thing is dependent for its existence 

 upon the care and induvstryof man, the men who exercise such care and 

 industry have a right of i)roperty in such thing. 



The counsel of the United States presented these views to the Tri- 

 bunal at length, with great ability, persistency, and force, and I speak 

 with assurance when I say that at the end of weeks ot discussion on 

 both sides their position was unshaken. So far from the British coun- 

 sel refuting tlieir arguments on this branch of the case, it may be said 

 that thei' nuule no effort to refute the above proposition, and tacitly, if 

 not openly, admitting that it ought to be the law, insisted that it was 

 necessary to show that the seals had been distinctly recognized as prop- 

 erty before the Tribunal could hold them to be such. 



The adverse decision of the Tribunal does not, it must be confessed, 

 seem to confirm this view, but its action is susceptible of explainition 

 without any reliection npon the impartiality of the neutral arbitrators. 

 I am pleased to state that they are gentlemen of ability and of the high- 

 est standing in their respective countries, and I have no doubt they 

 were inspired by a most conscientious desire to discharge their difficult 

 and somewhat complex duties upon a fair and just basis. But they 

 were confronted with a question novel in its facts and with a claim on 

 the part of the United States which to them seemed in conflict with 

 the accepted doctrine of the freedom of the seas. Further, it is now 

 apparent that it was unwise to have coui)led the question of the right of 



