130 



That the taking of fur seals for commercial purposes at tlieir breeding 

 grounds on the St. Paul and St. George, where alone there can be a 

 discrimination between the sexes, will not itself endanger the existence 

 of the herd if — as was done by Kussia and has been done by the United 

 States — the killing is restricted to such proportion of available vialcs as 

 will leave a sufficient number for purposes of rei)roduction ; 



That the killing of these animals in large numbers at any other place 

 than their land home or breeding grounds will speedily result in the 

 loss of the race to the world; 



That unrestrained pelagic sealing in Bering Sea or in the North 

 Pacific Ocean, even if no seals he taJcen on the islands by the United 

 States or its lessees, Avill result in the exterminatioUj within a very few 

 years, of the entire race frequenting those islands; 



That but for the care, supervision, and protection bestowed upon 

 these animals at their land home by the United States, the race would 

 long ago have become extinct; 



That if such care, sui)ervision, or protection be withdrawn, the race 

 would be destroyed; and, 



That the United States, by its ownershij) of the breeding grounds of 

 these animals is alone, of all the nations of the earth, in a position to 

 take or control the taking of these animals, so that their increase may 

 be regularly obtained for use without at all impairing the stock. 



In the light of the above facts, which can not be disputed by any- 

 one familiar with the record, let us inquire as to the principles of law 

 and justice applicable to the case. 



The particular question now under consideration involves two propo- 

 sitions, to be separately examined: 



First, as to the right of property which is asserted by the United 

 States in the Pribilof lierd of seals; 



Second, as to the protection of the herd by the United States while 

 the seals are outside of the ordinary three-mile limit. 



Much was said in the course of the argument as to the classification 

 of these fur seals among animals. One theory is, that while not strictly 

 domestic auinuils, they are so nearly like animals of that class that, 

 in determining whether under any circumstances they can become the 

 subject of property, and if so, under what circumstances, they should 

 be classed as domestic animals, or, at least, as domesticated animals. 

 Another theory is, that they are animixls ferw natiirw, and not subject to 

 exclusive appropriation as property, except in conformity to the prin- 

 ciples of law ax^plicable to aninuils of that class. The first theory has 



