36 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



Mr. Carter, I mean 1887. lu 1887 there were several — five I tliink — 

 British vessels seized. All of them were released. Upon what grounds 

 they were released, whetlier technical, or for the reason that it was 

 tliought the pending negotiation would be better advanced if causes of 

 irritation were removed, I will not undertake to say. They were in fact 

 released. 



Sir Charles Russell. There were seven seizures. 



Mr. Carter. Seven seizures. My statement was true that they were 

 all released but one. 1 think that one was the W. P. Sayicard. She 

 w\as carried in, libeled at Sitka, I suppose, and condemned; and from 

 the decree coiulemiiing her an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court 

 of the United States ; and tlie question of the riglitfulness of the seizure 

 was sought to be raised there. 



It was not an appeal that was taken. I am in error in stating that 

 an appeal was taken. The time for appealing had been allowed to pass, 

 and no appeal could be taken ; but counsel thereupon resorted to another 

 method which they thouglit might be effective to raise the question 

 whetlier these seizures were rightful or not, and determine it as a 

 judicial question. They took the ground that the seizures being out- 

 side of the municipal jurisdiction of the United States, and standing 

 upon a law of the United States, the court was without jurisdiction, 

 and therefore they ap])lied to the Supreme Court of the United States 

 for a writ of prohibition upou the inferior tribunal to prevent it from 

 executing the decree wliicli had been made. 



Tlie a])plication to the United States Supreme Court for this writ of 

 prohibition was denied, and thus that Court disaffirmed the right of 

 this applicant to raise this question in such a way. It is unnecessary 

 for me to go particularly into the grounds upon which the opinion was 

 based, especially as one of the learned Arbitrators happened to be one 

 of the Justices sitting on the Supreme Court Bench at that time and 

 participated in the decision, so that he can, of course, fully acquaint 

 the learned Arbitrators with the grounds on which the action of the 

 Supreme Court was had. 



And, tinally, in stating the features of this first stage of the contro- 

 versy, let me say that while, so far as the representatives of Great 

 Britain and the United States were concerned, the attempt at an 

 accommodation by means of an agreed system of regulations failed, 

 yet all i^arties were at all times agreed upou the prime necessity and 

 obligation, as it were, of both governments, to take some measure 

 or other which should have the effect of x>i'esei'ving the seals from 

 destruction. 



Now let me pass to the second stage of the controversy. On the 4th 

 of jMarch, 1881) Mr. Harrison succeeded INIr. Cleveland in the office of 

 President, and, of course, as happens on these occasions in America, 

 there was a sort of revolution in the administration of the various 

 Departments. Mr. Bayard was succeeded in the State Department by 

 Mr. Blaine, and there was a new American Minister to London. Pres- 

 ident Harrison, as reipiired by the Statutes of the United States, very 

 soon after his inauguration, made a general proclamation prohibiting 

 all pursuit of seals in the waters of Alaska, and, presumably, instruc- 

 tions were also given to the United States cruisers to ]uit the provisions 

 of the law into force. It will be recollected that some two years had 

 now elapsed since the beginning of negotiations upou this subject — 

 nearly two years. They were initiated in the summer of 1887 and the 

 spring of 1889 had now arrived. The proclamation having been made 

 and instructions given, there followed, early in the sealing season, the 



