55 



Tlio respective comitries o('cn])y, tliovefore, veiy (liffcioiit relutions to 

 tliis subject. A declcaration of tlie riglit in fovor of tlic citizens of tlie 

 United States to take fur-seals in Bering Sea, if made by this tribunal, 

 is a declaration that the statutes of the United States that forbid such 

 taking are of no validity and should be repealed, while the same 

 declaration when made in favor of British subjects is in perfect accord 

 with the laws, policy, aud contentions of that country. 



This obvious impediment to a decision as to the right of pelagic seal- 

 ing in Bering Sea, under which the power of the United States over her 

 own citizens would be called in question, confines the inquiry to the 

 simple proposition whether the United States have a property in the 

 seals in, or habitually resorting to Bering Sea, and tlie nature of that 

 property. 



The crucial test of the right of the United States to property in fur- 

 seals that resort to Bering Sea, whether that right implies a perfect 

 ownership of the seals or an interest in the usufruct of the herd for the 

 support of a legitimate and useful iiulnstry, is made by the treaty to 

 turn upon the question whether British subjects have the unrestricted 

 right to take seals on the high seas as free-swiranring animals tliat are* 

 ferw naturcv. This, therefore, is the main question in the case, and 

 draw^s within its influence every other question presented to the Tribu- 

 nal of Arbitration, except those questions that relate peculiarly to 

 Bering Sea, I have already discussed. 



This claim of right to take fur-seals on the high seas is asserted as a 

 private and personal right of every person who goes upon the high seas 

 under a recognized national tlag; and the employment of the tiag for 

 that purpose is not required to be legitimated by a license to fish. 



No gov^ernnient has asserted, or ever will assert, the right, as a gov- 

 ernment, to employ its sovereign powers, or its war fleets, in this busi- 

 ness, for the i)nrpose of increasing its levenues. Such conduct by a 

 government would be regarded as a disieputable invasion of the high 

 seas for i ts own aggrandizement and, wlien it shonld come in conflict 

 with the interests of the peo]>le of other countries, the invasion would 

 be regarded as a national offense. 



The case would be quite different if the ])nrpose of the govei'j-nent 

 was to protect a bona fide claim of proiierty in seals, against destruc- 

 tion. If in quest of seals to whicli no claim of property was asserted by 

 a government it should send out its fleets to gather revenue, or to 

 destroy such property, claimed by another government, the necessary 



