ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 41 



attention to the improvement of the seal fisheries. Proceeding by a close obedience 

 to the laws of nature, and rigidly limiting the number to be annually slaughtered, 

 the Government succeeded in increasing the total number of seals and adding cor- 

 respondingly and largely to the value of the fisheries. In the course of a few years 

 of intelligent and interesting experiment the number that could be safely slaugh- 

 tered was fixed at 100,000 annually. The Company to which the administration of 

 the fisheries was intrusted by a lease from this Government has paid a rental of 

 !f^oO,000 per annum, and in addition thereto §2.62^ per skin for the total number 

 taken. The skins were regularly transported to London to be dressed and prepared 

 ior the markets of the world, and the business had grown so large that the earnings 

 of English laborers, since Alaska was transferred to the United States, amount in 

 the aggregate to more than $12,000,000. 



Tlie entire business was then conducted peacefully, lawfully, and profitably — 

 profitably to the United States for the rental was yielding a moderate interest on 

 the large sum which this Government had jiaid for Alaska, including tlie rights now 

 at issue ; profitably to the Alaskan Company, which, under governmental direction 

 and restriction, had given unwearied iiaius to the care and development of the fish- 

 eries; profitably to the Aleuts, who were receiving a fair pecuniary reward for their 

 labors, and were elevated from semisavagery to civilization and to the enjoyment of 

 schools and churches provided for their benefit by tlie Government of the United 

 States; and, last of all, profitably to a large body of English laborers who had con- 

 stant employment and received good wages. 



This, in brief, was the condition of the Alaska fur-seal fisheries down to the year 

 1886. The precedents, customs, and rights had been established and enjoyed, either 

 liy Russia or the United States, for nearly a century. The two nations were the 

 only powers that owned a foot of laud on the continents that l)ordcred, or on the 

 islands included within, the Behring waters where the seals resort to breed. Into 

 this peaceful and secluded field of labor, whose benefits were so equitably shared by 

 the native Aleuts of the Pribilof Islands, by the United States, and by England, 

 certain Canadian vessels in 1886 asserted their right to enter, and by their ruthless 

 course to destroy the fisheries and with them to destroy also the resulting industries 

 which are so valuable. The Government of the United States at once proceeded to 

 check this movement, which, unchecked, was sure to do great and irreparable harm. 



It was cause of unfeigned surprise to the United States that Her Majesty's 

 Government should immediately interfere to defend and encourage (surely to encour- 

 age by defending) the course of the Canadians in disturbing an industry which had 

 been carefully developed for more than ninety years under the flags of Russia and 

 the United States — devclojied in such a manner as not to interfere Avith the public 

 rights or the private industries of any other ])eople or any other person. 



Whence did the ships of Canada derive the right to do in 1886 that which they 

 had refrained from doing for more than ninety years? Upon what grounds did her 

 Majesty's Government defend in the year 1886 a course of conduct in the Behring 

 Sea which she had carefully avoided ever since the discovery of that sea? By what 

 reasoning did Her Majesty's Government conclude that an act may be committed 

 with imjiunity against the rights of the United States which had never been 

 attempted against the same rights when held by the Russian Empire? 



So great has been the injury to the fisheries from the irregular and destructive 

 Blaughter of seals in the open waters of the Behring Sea by Canadian vessels, that 

 whereas the Government had allowed 100,000 to be taken annually for a series of 

 years, it is now compelled to reduce the number to 60,000. If four years of this vio- 

 lation of natural law and neighbor's rights has reduced the annual slaughter of seal 

 by 40 per cent, it is easy to see how short a period will be required to work the total 

 destruction of the fisheries. 



The ground upon w^hich Her Majesty's Government justifies, or at least defends 

 the course of the Canadian vessels, rests upon the fact that they are committing 

 their acts of destruction on the high seas, viz, more than 3 marine miles from the 

 shore line. It is doubtful whether Her Majesty's Government would abide by this 

 rule if the attempt were made to interfere witli the pearl fisheries of Ceylon, which 

 extend more than 20 miles from the shore line and have been enjoyed by England 

 without molestation ever since their acquisition. So well recognized is the British 

 ownership of those fisheries, regardless of the limit of the three-mile line, that Her 

 Majesty's Government feels authorized to sell the pearl-fishing right from year to 

 year to the highest bidder. Nor is it credible that modes of fishing on the Grand 

 Banks, altogether practicable but highly destructive, would be justified or even jier- 

 mitted by Great Britain on the plea that the vicious acts were committed more than 

 3 miles from shore. 



There are, according to scientific authority, "great colonies offish" on the "New- 

 foundland banks." These colonies resemble the seats of great populations on land. 

 They remain stationary, having a limited range of water in which to live and die. 

 In these great "colonies" it is, according to expert judgment, comparatively easy to 



