5G ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



instead of right, unless by their essential nature before the agreement 

 was reached, they were so. 



In that exceedingly brief manner Lord Salisbury disposes of the long 

 contention of Mr. Blaine which condemned pelagic sealing on the ground 

 that it Wiia contra bonos mores and destructive of a race of animals use- 

 ful and essential to the United States, and useful to mankind. I can- 

 not help thinking that he rather avoided, than answered, the argument. 

 He could not have answered the argument without dealing with the 

 nature of that pursuit — its real, essential nature — inquiring whether it 

 was, in fact, actually destructive of a useful race of animals, and if so, 

 whether it could in any form be defended. I am not to anticipate the 

 argument which 1 shall hereafter make to this Tribunal; but I cannot 

 help thinking that the position of Mr. Blaine was rather evaded than 

 answered by Lord Salisbury. He much prefers to display his power by 

 dealing with the argument which rests upon the pretentions of Russia; 

 and therefore he comes to consider that part of the argumeut of Mr. 

 Blaine. He says: 



"The second argument advanced by Mr. Blaine is that the 'fur-seal 

 fisheries of Behring Sea had been exclusively controlled by the Gov- 

 ernment of Russia, without interference and without question, from 

 their original discovery until the cession of Alaska to the United States 

 in 1867', and that 'from 1807 to 1880 the possession, in which Russia 

 had been undisturbed, was enjoyed by the United States Government 

 also without interruption or intrusion from any source.'" 



The arbitrators will perceive that the contention of Mr. Blaine as 

 thus stated, did not rest upon any assertion that Russia had an origi- 

 nal right to defend its exclusive enjoyment of the fur-seal fisheries 

 in Behring Sea by exercising jurisdiction over that sea. It was not an 

 assertion of that character. It was an assertion that, in ])oint of fact, 

 she had enjoyed that right without interruption, and without inter- 

 ference by other Governments during the whole period of her occu- 

 pation, and that the United States, since it had acquired the territory 

 of Alaska from Russia, had in a similar manner enjoyed, as a matter of 

 fact, without interruption from other nations, the exclusive right of fur- 

 seal fishery in Bering Sea. 



Lord Salisbury's answer does not meet that aspect of the question at 

 all. His answer to it is this: He says that when in 1821 Russia, by the 

 celebrated Ukase of that year, attempted to assert a sovereign juris- 

 diction over Bering Sea and to exclude the vessels of all other nations 

 from an area of one hundred miles around the islands, foreign Govern- 

 ments did not assent to it, but protested against it, and that, among 

 others, tbe United States protested against it; and he cites the language 

 of Mr. John Quiiicy Adams who was then the American Secretary of 

 State, protesting against those pretentions of Russia. It will be 

 remembered that Lord Salisbury had at an earlier stage of the contro- 

 versy referred to this same matter, and had endeavored to maintain 

 that the United States Government had no authority to do the acts 

 tliey had done in Behring Sea, and that they had by their own acts 

 shown that they had no such authority, because they had i^rotested 

 against similar pretentions when made by Russia. But I must again 

 remark that the argument of Mr. Blaine did not put forward the verbal 

 pretentions of the Russian Government; but it i)ut forward the matter 

 of fact of the exclusive possession of these fisheries by Hussia, and by 

 the United States. 



Lord Salisbury towards the ooiu'lusion of his note further observes: 



"Her Majesty's Government do not deny that if all sealing were 



