92 



The riglit to give sucli an interpretation to sncli conduct means that 

 the industry of pelagic hunting, like all other pursuits, however legiti- 

 mate, is qualified by the demands of justice that are due to all other 

 nations. The international law neither requires nor sanctions a resort 

 to war for the protection of the plainest rights, if they can be peace- 

 fully maintained without detriment or dishonor. 



Tliis tribunal cannot, injustice to itself, adopt the suggestion that it 

 must leave the industry of pelagic sealing, in view of this treaty and 

 its great purj)oses, so loosely defined and so free in its privileges and 

 so licensed to maraud upon the rights of the United States, that an 

 assemblage of sealing vessels in Bering Sea, sufficient to destroy the seal 

 herd in one or more seasons, is lawful. If it is malicious it is admitted 

 to be unlawful and that in such case the only remedy is war. In such 

 case the United States, being forced to judge of the evil and to provide 

 the remedy, would, as any court of justice must do, impute the malice 

 to the nature and consequences of the act. This tribunal is authorized 

 to act upon the same presumption in prohibiting this evil. 



Following up this right in all parts of the Bering Sea and in the 

 Pacific Ocean, the United States would justly imi^ute malice — a pur 

 pose of wrong-doing — to all acts that warred upon its revenues, in 

 respect to fur-seals, during the period of resort to the islands. This 

 action of the United States would find its full justification in the doc- 

 trines stated by counsel, which should be adopted in the award in this 

 case. If it would be right to resort to war to prevent or redress such 

 wrongs, the more peaceful remedy can not be contrary to the law ol 

 nations. 



If we follow the British contention as to the rights of pelagic sealers^ 

 and refuse to put any restraints upon pelagic sealing, instead of mak 

 ing an amicable settlement of the controversies that called us together 

 we would leave new and burning questions open between these Gov 

 ernments to be settled by war. It is not to be expected that the United 

 States, if left by this tribunal to the duty of defending itself against 

 the abuse of rights accorded to pelagic hunters, without any restric 

 tions being imposed upon them, will fail to availitself of the necessary 

 means of doing that duty. 



I now turn to other views of this subject which I think are made nee 

 essary by what has occurred in this case. 



Tlie unrestricted right of pelagic sealing has been supported by the 

 assertion that it is tlie only way in Avliich a monopoly in the fur seal 



