20 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



practice at once, and continued to assert that authority, taking all the 

 cons(^qnences. It is easy to see what that miglit have led to. Such a 

 position, once taken by tiie United States upon that question, could not 

 have been receded from. The contrary position taken upon the other 

 side, by (Ireat Britain, could not perhaps have been receded from; and 

 the result of that, as the cause of the controversy and the sources of 

 irritation were present at all times, would have been that the acts 

 would be continually repeated, and would inevitably lead to hostilities. 

 Another course was to endeavor to settle the coiitroversy without a 

 resort to any discussion of the respective rights of the Governments 

 which were immediately concerned, and to settle it upon the assump- 

 tion that whatever the rights were, u])ou the one side or the other, the 

 effect of this practice of pelagic sealing to vfhich the United States 

 objected was so manifestly injurious, and the practice so manifestly 

 wrong, that all Governments would probably assent to its repression, 

 and thus the difficulty would be avoided. 



Mr. Bayard did not believe, could not believe, that the practice of 

 X)elagic sealing was a right one. He did not believe, he could not 

 believe, that any civilii^ed nation would think it to be right. That was 

 his view; but the course which sfatesmen take is, in most instances 

 perhaps, a good deal governed by their particular personal character. 

 Mr. Bayard, I need not say, is a statesman of the most enlightened 

 character and the most humane views. No man had a greater abhor- 

 rence for war than he. No man had a lower estimate of force as a 

 mode of adjusting international conflicts; and in respect to a question 

 upon which, as he viewed it, there ought to be no difference among 

 enlightened men, there would be no excuse on the part of the Govern- 

 ment of the United States in so dealing with it as to make a resort to 

 hostilities even jirobable. His course, th.erefore, at tirst was a concilia- 

 tory one. He determined to address tlie Governments not only of 

 Great Britain, but the several Governments of the great maritime 

 nations, put the question befoie them, and invite them to consider the 

 matter and come to an agreement in reference to tliis business of ijelagic 

 sealing — such an agreement as would prevent the extermination of the 

 seals — without any resort to irritating discussions upon questions of 

 right. That position of Mr. Bayard is taken by the ilrst note of a 

 deliberate cliaracter respecting this matter which he wrote. It is found 

 on page 108 of the volume to which I have been referring. This par- 

 ticular note is one from him to Mr. Vignaud; but copies of it were sent 

 to the American Ministers in Germany, Great Britain, Russia, Swe- 

 den and Norway and Ja]»an. 



Sir ( 'li AiiLKS lUiswKLL. I think a copy of this was not sent to Great 

 Britain. 



Mr. Oakter. 1 think it was. 



Sir Charj.es IItts.sell. I think not. 



Mr. Carter. That is my impression. 



Mr. Foster. Yes. 



Mr. Carter. I will read this note: 



No. 256.] Dki^autment of State, Washington, Aufiust 19, 1S87. 



SiK: Ruceutocciuiouces have drawn the attention of this Department to the neces- 

 sity of taking steps for the better protection of the fur-seal tisheries in Behring Sea. 



Without rai-sing any (pnistion as to the excei)tional measures which the peculiar 

 character of tlie projierty in question niiglit justify tliis Goverumeut in taking, and 

 witlioi'.t I'cfercnce to any ex(e])tional Jiiariue jurisdiction that might properly be 

 chiiuK'd ior that end, it is dceniod advisable — and I am insti'ucted by the President 

 sy to iufyvw you — to Wttiiiu thu desired ends by international cooperation. 



