72 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



The learned Arbitrators v.ill there perceive that iMr. Blaine comes 

 back to his orijiinal "round and puts the case upon the question of 

 property^ and of essential right, and of a right to defend i)roperty 

 interests on the high seas against acts which are themselves contra bonos 

 mores. I am obliged to admit that these two attitudes taken by Mr. 

 Blaine in this letter, one at the beginning and the other at the end, are 

 inconsistent and self-contradictory; but it is, nevertheless, true that, 

 inasmncli as the last attitude is taken at the end of his letter, the posi- 

 tion of the United States as heretofore assumed was not by this letter, 

 as it never had been by any other, substantially, or in any respect 

 indeed, changed. 



Lord Salisbury had the last word on this subject. He rejoined to Mr. 

 Blaine in a letter dated February 21, 1891. 



Sir Charles Eussell. That is comparatively short. 



Mr. Carter. Comparatively short, but not short enough for me to 

 read it. Nor is it necessary for me to describe it, or to say anything 

 of it, except that it was a reiteration of his original positions and a 

 res})ectful statement that the argument of Mr. ]]laine on the other side 

 was not satisfactory; closing, I believe, as is usual, with these polite 

 gentlemen, with some conciliatory observations, and also containing 

 some discussion of the points of the proposed arbitration ; for the arbi- 

 trators will remember that while this discussion npon the merits of the 

 controversy was going on, another discussion was also going on between 

 the parties, j9«/* jM,.ssif, concerning the features of the arbitration, 

 towards which the correspondence and the negotiation were gradually 

 tending. There was a good deal of correspondence after this, but it 

 contains very little — nothing — which imports into the controversy any 

 special new feature which it is important forme to bring to your atten- 

 tion at this time. The debate was exhausted; the disputants had 

 stated their views, and they had not approached an agreement at all 

 upon any of the questions in controversy. The necessity for some mode 

 of adjustment in order to prevent a very lamentable result became 

 more and more apparent to each party, and approaches were gradually 

 made to a final agreement for an arbitration. Much discussion took 

 place in reference to tlie i)oints wliicii should be submitted; but there 

 was not very great difliculty experienced in coming to an agreement. 

 The remaining discussion, therefore, eml)races the controversy con- 

 cerning the shape which the arbitration should take, and all it is nec- 

 essary for me to say in reference to it is this: as finally agreed upon it 

 still i)resented its original aspect of a scheme with two alternative 

 features, one contemi)lating that there should be a mixed commission 

 of experts which should make in(|uiries in relation to seal life and 

 pelagic sealing, and as to what regulations were necessary to preserve 

 the seals, and report n])on that; that if the two Governments upon 

 receiving that report should find themselves able to agree upon a 

 scheme of regulations, the arbitration would become unnecessary. 

 That was not expressed, but it was an implied teature all along. It was 

 borrowed from tlie original suggestion of Sir Julian Pauncefote. But 

 if there was a failure to agree, then, of course, it would be necessary 

 that the arbitration should i)roceed, and when it did proceed, it was to 

 embrace all the (luestions in relation to the original pretensions of 

 Eussia, and to the rights which the United States may have derived 

 from Eussia grounded upon those pretensions; next, the question of 

 the proi^erty interest of the United States in the seals, and in the 

 industry which was maintained in respect to those animals upon the 

 Pribilof Islands; and then, if the determination of the Tribunal ux)on 



