171 



Speculate as we may about some aspects of this case, or differ as we 

 may about the weight of evidence upon some points, this is abso- 

 lutely certain: If the United States had actual manual custody of 

 each of these animals, at all times in the year, it could not jjrojj^r/y deal 

 with them in any other mode than that pursued by it, namely, to take 

 only such part of the males each year as will leave the race or herd unim- 

 paired in its entirety for the use of man. And they can not possibly be 

 dealt with in that manner, and with such results, except hy the United. 

 States or its licensees, or at any other place than at the breeding grounds 

 on its islands. All this is so clearly established that no one, having the 

 slightest regard for the evidence, will assert the contrary. 



I have referred to the self-denial practiced by the United States in 

 restricting the taking of seals at the Pribilof Islands to males of proper 

 age and in such limited numbers as will not cause a substantial impair, 

 ment of the stock. The Government of that countrj^, let me repeat, has 

 the power, if it chooses to exercise it, of taking in any one year such an 

 undue proportion of the seals, male and female, which frequent its 

 islands as would give the United States an immediate profit of large 

 amount. Its power over the seals while on the islands is so absolute 

 that, as counsel suggest, it could practically exterminate the race 

 almost at one stroke. But it recognizes a moral obligation resting 

 upon it to preserve, not to destroy, a race of animals useful to the world. 

 In order that the si^ecies may be preserved for itself and for mankind it 

 abstains from sacrificing the race for the sake of temporary or in-esent 

 profit. This abstinence is industry under another name. And this 

 principle of abstinence, or saving, is recognized by all writers upon 

 economic questions as a potent agency in the creation of wealth and in 

 the progress of the world. 



John Stuart Mill, in his Principles of Economy, has said that "as the 

 "wagesof the laborer is the remuneration of labor, so the profits of the 

 capitalists are properly the remuneration of abstinence." Vol. 2, 

 p. 484. 



A recent writer upon the ethics of usury and interest has said: "On 

 the hypothesis that all have equal ()])portunities of social progress, the 

 social destroyers of its wealth deserve condemnation, while those who 

 have served the cause of progress by saving from personal consumption 

 a part of the earth's produce and devoting it to the improvement of 

 national mechanism have a claim to an award proportioned to their 

 service and to the efforts which they have made in rendering it. These 



