56 



result would be a disturbance of tlie peace and probably a hostile col- 

 lision. The case is altered in degiee, but not in its nature, Avhen a 

 government sustains and adopts the rights of its people to destroy a 

 property or industry claimed by another nation. If such government 

 could not, under the nsage of nations or just principles of interna- 

 tional law, thus enrich its treasury, it is difficult to see on what prin- 

 ciple it could support its peo^de in such conduct for tlieir private gain. 

 In either case the sentiment of justice entertained by the civilized 

 nations would sustain the power that, in good faith, claimed the right 

 to own and protect the fur-seals for the bencht of the commerce of the 

 world, rather than the nation that denied the right of property in 

 seals, until they are cai)tured and killed, and claimed the right to make 

 property of them only by indiscriminate and destructive slaughter. 



In this treaty, and in all the diplomatic contentions that have led to 

 its conclusion, botli Governments have admitted that property in seals 

 may be acquired, protected, and preserved, at least to the extent of 

 protecting and i) reserving- them by their concurrent regulations, and 

 they have agreed to ai^ply thet e conceded facts to certain seals that 

 habitually resort to the waters of Bering Sea. These questions are vir- 

 tually removed from the field of doubt or disputation by the terms 

 of the treaty undei- which the Tribunal of Arbitration is acting. 



Great Britain now asserts that the ])roperty in seals can be acquired 

 only by capture, which, under the xiractice of pelagic hunting, as con- 

 ducted by its subjects, means that such i)roperty can be acquired only 

 by killing the animals. 



The United States asserts that property in seals may be acquired 

 while they live, and without actual cai)ture. As to the right of prop- 

 erty in the individual animals, this is the only form of issue that is 

 joined between the parties to this treaty. 



As to the proper protection and preservation of seal life to which 

 the Governments are both solemnly pledged in this treaty Great 

 Britain contends that taking them at sea is a better method than 

 taking them on land, and is, therefore, the proper method; while the 

 United States claim that the only method of taking seals that can 

 properly protect them is by selecting the animals for slaughter, and 

 that this can be done on the land and can not be done in the water. 

 The killing of tlic animals is included in each of these contentions as 

 the only way in which tliey can be made useful to mankind; and the 

 iime, place, and vtetJiod of Idllbuj Iher.i that is hcst adapted to the protcc- 



