91 



the plaue of the honorable and nsefnl industries of mankind. This is 

 called in the British case and in the arguments of British counsel "the 

 industry" of pelagic hunting or fishing; and it is claimed that it is 

 legitimate trade, in competition with the trade and industry conducted 

 on the Pribilof Islands by the United States. An iiulustry that 

 destroys and exterminates the subject to which it is applied is not 

 deserving of tliis honorable definition. 



But, treating it as a just and honorable industry, will Great Britain, 

 iu)w that it has raken up the duty of preserving and i)rotecting this 

 fur seal industry on ijublic account, publicly license and conduct fur- 

 seal hunting, in the way and with the destructive eifect that it is being 

 prosecuted by its own subjects, and by citizens of the United States 

 who abuse its flag by making it a shelter to protect them against 

 criminal responsibility to their own Government? 



Is it true that under this treaty, which leaves this tribunal to deal 

 with these questions as matters that concern justice, peace, and comity 

 between nations, and not as mere private rights, the Government of 

 Great Britain claims for itself, as a government, or for its people, the 

 right to pursue this industry in the present destructive and cruel way 

 in which it lias been and is being conducted? 



If the strict legal right of pelagic sealing attends and legitimates this 

 industry in all waters outside actual territorial limits, and makes it law- 

 ful to surround tlie seal islands with ships and to kill the animals as 

 they come and go from the islands to the open sea, does Great Britain, 

 under this treaty, claim that the right now exists in this unqualified 

 extent, in favor of its subjects, or that it comports with the i)ledges of 

 this treaty that the seals are to be preserved and protected? 



Great Britain has taken the right to pursue this industry from the 

 hands of its subjects, on the grounds of i^ublic policy and of duty to 

 the United States, and has submitted them to this tribunal for de(;ision. 



If the "industry," as it is ])ursued, is legitimate fishing, and if it 

 could have received the sanction of the British Government, this seri- 

 ous wrong to her subjects in depriving them of it could not have been 

 done. 



It is said by counsel of Great Britain that, in the case supi)osed, of a 

 cordon of ships drawn up around the seal islands, waylaying the seals 

 in the breeding season as they come from and go to the sea for food 

 and killing them indisciiminatcly, that such an act would be malicious 

 and the United States would treat it as a casus belli, within the right 

 of nations under the international law. 



