90 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



aud tliere were, as we know from history very well, conflicting claims 

 arising out of an asserted i^riority of right; and those conflicting claims 

 were often the subject of discussion between different Governments. 

 It was necessary that some rule should be established by which pri- 

 ority of right should be determined; and the rule eventually estab- 

 lished was the one which men would necessarily recognise if there was 

 no other thing to give priority, — and that was priority of dis(;overy. 

 That came to be universally recognized as a just foundation for a riglit. 

 If, indeed, the prior discovery were subsequently abandoned, it might 

 go for nothing; but unless it was abandoned, if discovery had been 

 made, if an assertion of title had accompanied it, and an intention to 

 appropriate the region — 



The President. And taking ])ossession'? 



Mr. Carter. And M^/e^/ion to take possession. It was not necessary 

 to take actual possession, at first. That would not be possible in many 

 cases; but if the intention existed to take actual possession, and that 

 intention were carried out within a reasoiuible i)eriod, and not aban- 

 doned, the full and complete foundation of a right was laid. 



How far did such a right extend'? A nation discovers some part of 

 the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Could it claim the whole 

 Atlantic Coast upon the basis of that mere discovery? How great a 

 strip of the coast does a discovery of one particular part of it entitle 

 the nation which has made the discovery to claim? Could she say: 

 "I will coast with vessels along this shore for a thousand nules or two 

 thousand miles, and claim the whole of it on the strength of thaf?" 

 That was one of the questions. Then again: How far inland does the 

 right thus founded upon prior discovery extend? That was another 

 question. Could a nation that had seen and observed a particular 

 point on the coast of a continent extend Its title indefinitely to the 

 interior and perhaps to the ocean on the other side of it? 



Those questions were never fully settled; but there was an approach 

 to a settlement, and I think it was generally recognized that so much 

 of a coast could be claimed bj^ a discovering nation as it was in the 

 power of that nation to fairly occupy. 



So much for the coast. Then as to the interior. A discovering nation 

 was entitled to carry back her claim into the interior as far as the rivers 

 which emptied upon the coast to which she was entitled could be followed. 

 That was a sort of general rule, having some recommendations in point 

 of reason, which was asserted and to a certain extent recognised by 

 the nations at the time. 



Of course, the right of a nation in respect to the extent of territory 

 which it could claim title to could not be limited to the mere point which 

 it had discovered. Great Britain asserted that she had discovered the 

 whole Atlantic Coast of the North American continent, from Nova 

 Scotia at the North, down to Florida at the South. I leave out of view 

 now the controversy between Great Britain and Holland which aifected 

 that portion of the coast in which New York is situated, the title of 

 Great Britain being finally vindicated to that. But she claimed, you 

 may say, the whole Atlantic Coast in virtue of the right of i^rior dis- 

 covery. Had she nuxny establishments upon that coast at an early 

 period ? No ; not half a dozen of them. That whole space, an extent of 

 3,000 miles or more, was asserted by Great Britain to be hers in virtue 

 of no other title than a right of first discovery, and an occui)ation in 

 half a dozen different places along the coast. 



llusSia, in making her discoveries of both shores of the Bering Sea, 

 of the islands of the Bering Sea, and of the Northwest Coast down to 



