54 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



There is tlie answer of the Government of (ireat Britian. and the 

 only answer contained in this diplomatic corresj)oiidence, to the full 

 statement of the grounds of rif/Jit relied np(m by the United States as 

 contained in the note of Mr. Blaine; and, althongh I am not going into 

 the discnssion now of the merits, it is pro]>er for me to call the atten- 

 tion of the learned arbitrators to the manner in whick the positions 

 were met. Lord Salisbury states very brietly, and fairly enough, the 

 grounds upon which Mr. Blaine placed his contention. He puts them 

 thus : 



Mr. Blaine's note flefeurls tbe acts coniplainod of by Her Majesty's Goveriniient on 

 the ibllowiiii;- <;ionn{ls: 



1. Tliat " tlie C^anadian vessels arrested and detained in the Beln'in<T Sea were 

 engagcMl iii a pursuit that is in itself contra honon mores — a. ])ursuit whicli of neces- 

 sity involves a serious and permanent injury to the rights of the Government and 

 people of the United States." 



2. That the fisheries had heen in the undisturbed posse'^sion and under the exclu- 

 sive control of Russia I'rom their discovery until the cession of Alaska to the United 

 States in 1S67, and that from this date onwards until 1886 they had also remained in 

 the undisturbed possession of the United States Government. 



3. That it is a fact now held beyond denial or doubt that the tahiug of seals in the 

 open sea rapidly leads to tlie extinction of the species, and that therefore mitions not 

 possessing the territory upon which seals can increase their numbers l)y natural 

 growth should refrain from the slaughter of them in the open sea. 



Mr. Jilaine further argues tliat the law of the sea and the liberty which it confers 

 do not justify acts which are immoral in themselves, and wliich inevitaldy tend to 

 results against tlie interests and against the welfare of mankind; and he proceeds to 

 justify the forcibh^ resistance of the I'nited States Governiuent by the necessity of 

 delending not only their own traditional and long established riglits, but also the 

 rights of good morals and of good government the world over. 



There is perlia|)s a touch of irony in this observation of Lord Salis- 

 bury imputing to the United States the assumption of a jurisdiction 

 for the ])rotection of good government and good morals the world over. 

 That imputation was hardly justified by anything which Mr. Blaine had 

 said. His ground was that the pursuit of pelagic fishing was contra 

 honos mores; in other words it was essentially, and upon fundamental 

 princi])lt\s, an indefensible wrong. Tliat, of itself, did not give the 

 Government of the United States the right to interfere. Mr. Blaine 

 made no such pretention; but, when it was at the same time injurious 

 to a most valuable and lawful interest of the United States, that cir- 

 cumstance gave, as he insisted, the authority to the United States Gov- 

 ernment to interfere and prevent the doing of an injury to its own inter- 

 ests by acts which were, in themsi'lves, indefensible wiongs. 



Lord Salisbury, further considering the point put forth by Mr. Bhiiue 

 that ])elagic sealing was an otfence contra bo)ios mores, says that two 

 questions are involved here: first, whether the pursuit ami killing of 

 fur-seals in certain parts of the open sea are, from the point of view of 

 internatiojiai morality, an offence contra honos mores. This is extremely 

 well stated; and second, whether, if such be the case, this fact justifies 

 the seizure on tlie high seas and subsequent confiscation in time of 

 peace, of the private vessels of a friendl^^ nation. 



Nothing could be better stated than that. The position taken by 

 Mr. Blaine did raise those two questions exactly. First, whether, from 

 the i)oint of view of international morality, pelagic sealing is right or 

 wrong. Second, whether if, from the point of view of international 

 morality, it is declared to be wrong, that circumstance furnishes to the 

 United States a ground ui)on which in time of peace to arrest and carry 

 in for condemnation a vessel engaged in the practice. 



What is Lord Salisbury's argument? First, it is this: Suppose it to 

 be contra honos mores; suppose it to be against international morality j 



