ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 141 



1821, assert and enforce an exclusive right in the "seal fisheries" in said sea, and 

 also asserted and enforced the right to protect her industries in said '"fislieries" and 

 her exclusive interests in other industries established and maintained by her upon 

 the islands and shores of said sea, as well as her exclusive enjoyment of her trade 

 with her colonial establishments upon said islands and shores, by establishing pro- 

 hibitive regulations interdicting all foreign vessels, except in certain specified 

 instances, from approaching said islands and shores nearer than 100 miles. 



To the second question, "how far were tliese claims of jurisdiction 

 as to the vseal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain?" 

 we tliink this should be the answer: 



Second. The claims of Russia above mentioned as'to the ''seal fishei-ies" in Bering 

 Sea were at all times, from the first assertion thereof by Russia down to the time of 

 the cession to the United States, recognized and acquiesced in by Great Britain. 



To the third question, that relating to the scope and meaning of 

 "Pacific Ocean," the answer should be this: 



Third. The body of water now known as Behring Sea was not included in the 

 phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in the treaty of 1825, between Great Britain and 

 Russia; and after that treaty Russia continued to hold and to exercise exclusively 

 a property right in the fur-seals resorting to the Pribilof Islands, and to the fur- 

 sealing and other industries established by her on the shores and islands above men- 

 tioned, and to all trade with her colonial establishments on said shores and islands, 

 with the further right of protecting, by the exercise of necessary and reasonable 

 force over Bering Sea, the said seals, industries, and colonial trade from any invasion 

 by citizens of other nations tending to the destruction or injury thereof. 



This is the answer we propose to the fourth question: 



Fourth. All the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction and as to the seal fisheries in 

 Behring Sea east of the water boundary in the treaty between the United States and 

 Russia, of the 30th of March, 1867, did pass uninii»aired to the United States under 

 that treaty. 



The fifth question, which is, "Has the United States any right and 

 if so what right of protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting 

 the islands of the United States outside the ordinary three-mile limit?" 

 involves more particularly the discussion of the question of property, 

 to which I now proceed. 



I am glad to pass from these questions of the interpretation of trea- 

 ties concluded half a century ago, from questions which involve discus- 

 sions as to the intentions of governments of which we have no very 

 certain evidence, from questions which call into consideration and 

 debate doubtful matters of fact, or doubtful interpretations of public 

 documents, and recur to rights which rest upon fundamental prin- 

 ciples; and I approach with satisfaction a stage of this debate where I 

 have an opportunity for the first time of putting the claims of the United 

 States in this controversy upon a basis which I feel to be impregnable j 

 I mean the basis of a i^roperty interest. 



The United States assert a property interest connected with these 

 seals in two forms, which, although they approach each other quite 

 closely, and to a very considerable extent depend upon the same evi- 

 dence and the same considerations, are yet so far distinct and separate 

 as to deserve a separate treatment. Those two assertions of a property 

 interest are these : 



First, that the United States have a property interest in the herd 

 of seals which frequents the Pribilof Islands, and which has its home 

 and its breeding place there; and, 



Second, that, irrespective of any piojx'rty interest which they may 

 have in that herd, and even if it were held that they had no property 



