ORAL ARGUMENT OF JA.MES C. CARTER, ESQ. 33 



between the secretary for foreign affairs, the Riassian ambassador, and myself. This 

 convention, as I have before advised you, had been virtually agreed on verbally, 

 except in its details; and the Russian as well as the United States Goveruineut were 

 desirous to have it ccmipleted. The consideration of it had been suspended for com- 

 munication by the British Government with the Canadian Government, for which 

 purpose an interval of several months had been allowed to elapse. During tliis time 

 the attention of Lord Salisbury had been repeatedly recalled to the subject by this 

 legation, and on those occasions the answer received from him was that no reply 

 from tlie Canadian authorities had arrived. 



In tlie conversation on the 13th, above mentioned, I again pressed for the comple- 

 tion of the convention, as the externiinatiou of the seals by Canadian vessels was 

 understood to be rapidlj^ proceeding. His lordship in reply did not question the 

 propriety or the importance of taking measures to prevent the wanton destruction 

 of so valuable an industry, in which as ho remarked, England had a large interest 

 of its own, but said that the Canadian Government objected to any such restrictions, 

 and that until its consent could be obtained, Her Majesty's Government was not will- 

 ing to enter into the convention ; that time would be requisite to bring this about, 

 and that meanwhile the convention must wait. 



It is very a])parent to me that the British Government will not execute the desired 

 convention without the concurrence of Canada. And it is equally apparent that the 

 concurrence of Canada in any such arrangement is not to be reasonably expected. 

 Certain Canadian vessels are making a profit out of the destruction of the seal in 

 the breeding season in the waters in question, inhuman and wasteful as it is. That 

 it leads to the speedy extermination of the animal is no loss to Canada, because no 

 part of these seal fisheries belong to that country; and the only profit open to it in 

 connection with them is by destroying the seal in the open sea during the breeding 

 time, although many of the animals killed in that Avay are lost, and those saved are 

 worth much less than when killed at the proper time. 



Under these circumstances, the Government of the United States must, in my 

 opinion, either submit to have these valuable fisheries destroyed or must take meas- 

 ures to prevent their destruction by capturing the vessels employed in it. Between 

 these alternatives it does not appear to me there should be the slightest hesitation. 



Much learning has been expended upon the discussion of the abstract question of 

 the right of mare clausum. 1 do not conceive it to be applicable to the present case. 



Here is a valuable fishery, and a large and, if properly managed, permanent indus- 

 try, the property of the nations on whose shores it is carried on. It is proposed by 

 the colony of a foreign nation, in defiance of the joint remonstrance of all the coun- 

 tries interested, to destroy this business by the indiscriminate slaughter and exter- 

 mination of the animals in question, in the open neighljoring sea, during the period 

 of gestation, when the common dictates of humanity ought to protect them, were 

 there no interest at all involved. And it is suggested that we are prevented from 

 defending ourselves against such depredations because the sea at a certain distance 

 from the coast is free. 



The same line of argument would take under its protection piracy and the slave 

 trade, when prosecuted in the open sea, or would justify one nation in destroying 

 the commerce of another by placing dangerous obstructions and dei'elicts in the 

 open sea near its coasts. There are many things that can not be allowed to be done 

 on the open sea with impunity, and against which every sea is mare clausum. And 

 the right of self defense as to person and property prevail there as fully as else- 

 where. If the fish upon the Canadian coasts could be destroyed by scattering jioi- 

 son in the open sea adjacent, with some small profit to those engaged in it, would 

 Canada, upon the just principles of international law, be held defenseless in such 

 a case? Yet that process would be no more destructive, inhuman, and wanton than 

 this. 



If precedents are wanting for a defense so necessary and so proper it is because 

 precedents for such a course of conduct are likewise unknown. The best interna- 

 tional law has arisen from precedents that have been established when the just occa- 

 sion for them arose, undeterred by the discussion of abstract and inadequate rules. 



Especially should there be no hesitation in taking this course with the vessels of 

 a colony which has for three years harassed the fisheries of our country with con- 

 slant captures of vessels engaged in no violation of treaty or legal rights. The 

 comity of nations has not deterred Canada from the persistent obstruction of justi- 

 fiable and legitimate fishing by American Aessels near its coast. What principle of 

 reciprocity precludes us from putting an end to a pursuit of the seal by Canadian 

 ships which is unjustifiable and illegitimate? 



I earnestly recommend, therefore, that the vessels that have been already seized 

 while engaged in this business be firmly held, and that measures be taken to capture 

 and hold every one hereafter found concerned in it. If further legislation is neces- 

 sary, it can doubtless be readily obtained. 



There need be no fear but that a resolute stand on this subject will at once put an 

 end to the mischief complained of. It is not fo be reasonably expected that Great 



B S, PT XII 3 



