POINTS IN REPLY TO THE BRITISPI COUNTER CASE. 317 



and proprietor of those islands, availed itself of this opportunity, and 

 by wit, industry and self denial made these animals the subjects of 

 such husbandry, and thereby furnished to commerce and the world 

 the benefits of the product, at the same time preserving the stock? 



Third. Do not these facts, under the circumstances proved, give to 

 the United States Government, upon the just principles applicable to 

 the case, and in accordance with the general usage of nations in simi- 

 lar instances, such a right of property in the seal herd and the hus- 

 bandry thus based upon it as entitles that Government to protect it 

 from destruction, at the times and in the manner complained of? 



Fourth. Even if it were possible to conceive that this right of prop- 

 erty, unquestioned so long as the seal herd remains within the terri- 

 torial waters of the United States, is suspended as to each and any 

 individual seal as soon and so long as it can be found outside the terri- 

 torial line, however temporarily, and with whatever intention of re- 

 turning, are individuals of another nation then entitled to destroy such 

 animals for the sake of private gain, if it is made clearly to appear 

 that such destruction is fatal or even largely injurious to the important 

 material interest of the United States Government so established and 

 maintained upon its territory, for the benefit of itself, its people, and 

 mankind 1 ? More especially if the manner of such destruction is in it- 

 self so barbarous and inhuman that it is prohibited in all places where 

 civilized municipal law prevails? Is such conduct a part of the just 

 freedom of the sea"? 



Fifth. Is any practicable husbandry possible in pelagic sealing, or is 

 not that pursuit essentially and necessarily destructive to that interest, 

 and certain, if engaged in to any considerable extent, to result in the 

 loss, commercially speaking, of the animal to the world? 



Who will say that Her Majesty's Government, in its principal Case, 

 or in its Counter Case, takes a square attitude upon either of these ques- 

 tions? Who will *ay that it squarely negatives either of the two first 

 or affirms the last of these questions, as matters of fact, or meets with 

 any satisfactory answer, either upon principle or authority, the prop- 

 ositions of the other two? 



What, then, is the character of this Counter Case, so far as respects 

 the matter referred to? It seems to consist in great part of desultory 

 observations, suggestions, and conjectures, probable or improbable, 

 upon immaterial points; or, where the points are material, the matter 

 is vague and indefinite, and the proofs slight, often inconsistent, and 



