1G8 



sible uses and devote tlicm to these seals; to guard tliein, at enormous 

 expense, from outside depredation; and to refrain from taking any 

 females, and only a due proportion of males, thereby leaving the stock 

 unimpaired. If either one of these forms of care be withdrawn the race 

 would be swept away with a rapidity only commensurate with the 

 neglect. Human society can have no other interest in useful animals, 

 bestowed for the comfort and sustenance of man, except to jireserve the 

 race so that its product may be perpetually enjoyed. If it can obtain 

 this service from one nation only it must of necessity employ that 

 nation and decree to it the ax)propriate reward. The United States 

 is in a position to render that service. Other nations and their subjects 

 can touch these animals on the sea alone; but they can touch them 

 only to destroy, because the animals cannot possibly be taken on the 

 sea, to any material extent, without speedily exterminating the race. 

 The divine law, reason, justice, and the municipal jurisprudence of all 

 civilized nations, and therefore, as I submit, international law, all con- 

 cur in declaring that the right thus to destroy that which all mankind 

 is interested in preserving does not exist. 



The suggestion has been earnestly pressed that there can be no 

 such appropriation or occupation of these animals, as is requisite to 

 give property, except in respect to such of them as are ca])tured and 

 taken into actual, physical possession. The idea underlying this 

 suggestion is, that there cannot be any legal possession of these fur- 

 seals until they are confined or shut up in an inclosure of some kiiul. 

 But this view entirely ignores all consideration of what, in view of the 

 nature and habits of the particular animals, is essential to be done 

 in order that they may come under such control that their increase 

 may be regularly taken for use, leaving the stock unimpaired. As to 

 some animals /ercB naturw, no such result can possibly be attained 

 unless they are effectively restrained in their liberty by actiial confine- 

 ment. In cases of that kind the right of property is of course lost 

 when manual custody ceases, for the obvious reason that the 

 increase of such animals can never be obtained for the use of 

 man in the absence of thch^ actual continuous coTifinement. 

 AVhen, therefore, the right of property rests, as in the case of 

 some animals it unquestionably does, alone on actual physical 

 custody, such right is lost Avhen the custody ceases. But, when 

 continuous confinement or custody is not essential in order that the 

 product may be regularly and certainly obtained, then such control as 



