188 



motliers liave l)een slanglitercd; tlic unavoidable result being tlie 

 extenniiiation of the whole race and the destruction of the valuable 

 interests tliercin of the United States Government and of mankind; 

 and the only object being- the small, uncertain, and temporary profits 

 to be derived while the i)rocess of destruction lasts, by the individuals 

 concerned. 



^'And it is this conduct, inhuman and barbarous beyond the power 

 of description, criminal by the laws of the United States and of every 

 civilized country so far as its municipal jurisdiction extends, in respect 

 to any wild animal useful to man or even ministering to his harmless 

 l)leasure, that is insisted upon as a part of the sacred rights of the 

 freedom of the sea, which no nation can repress or defend against, 

 whatever its necessity. Can anything be added to the statement of 

 this proposition that is necessary to its refutation? 



''What precedent for it, ever tolerated by any nation of the earth, is 

 Itroduced? From what writer, judge, jurist, or treaty is authority to 

 be derived for the assertion that the high sea is or ever has been fiee 

 for such conduct as this, or that any such construction was ever before 

 given to the terms 'freedom of the sea' as to throw it open to the 

 destruction, for the profit of individuals, of valuable national interests 

 of any description whatever?" 



The general proposition deduced from these statements is, that no 

 individual can be said to liave a right, under international law, to exicr- 

 minate a race of valuable animals, for the sake simply of the temporary 

 l)rolit realized from such practices while the process of destruction goes 

 on ; consequently, it is argued, the United States may, upon the principles 

 of self-protection or self-i)reservation, employ, even upon the high seas, 

 such force as is necessary to prevent that destruction and thereby i)ro- 

 tect the industry which is maintained on its islands for purposes of rev- 

 enue and commerce as well as for the comfort and maintenance of the 

 native inhabitants of those islands — the existevcc of which industry dc- 

 l)ends ahsoliUcly upon the existence of this race of animals. 



This proposition is disputed by Her Britannic Majesty, who insists, 

 by counsel, that her subjects, unless forbidden by the laws of Great 

 Britain, or by some treaty or convention to which that country 

 is a party, are entitled under the law of nations to capture and kill 

 lor use or profit, any atiimals, however valuable, found in the high 

 seas; that this rigat does not depend in the slightest degree upon 

 the inquiry whether the particular methods employed in cai)turiug and 



