156 ORAL ARGUMENT OF .TAMER C. CARTER, ESQ. 



denial, an abstinence, in lei'eienc^e to tbat animal. They did not club 

 liim the moment he landed and api)ly him to their purposes indiscrimi- 

 nately, male and female. They did not take one in this way. They 

 careluUy avoided it. They practiced a self-denial. And that self-denial, 

 and the care and industry in other respects which 1 have mentioned, 

 lead those seals to come to those islands year after year, where they 

 thns submit themselves to human power so as to enable the whole 

 benelit of the animal to be applied to the uses of man. Let me ask what 

 would have been the case if this care and industry had not have been 

 aj)plied? Suppose the art and industry of the United States and its 

 self-denial had not been exerted," what would have been the result? 

 We have only to look to the fate of the seal in other quarters of the globe 

 where no such care was exerted, to learn wliat would have been the result. 

 They would have been exterminated a hundred years ago. That herd 

 would not exist there now, and could not exist. Every marauder who 

 thought he could make a profitable voyage by descending upon the 

 ivslands in the hope of getting seals would have gone there and killed 

 indiscriminately all that he could hnd. The herd would have been 

 exterminated just as such herds have been exterminated in every other 

 quarter of the globe where this care has not been exercised. 



Therefore, I respectfully submit to you that the present existence of 

 that herd on those islands — the life of every one of those seals, be they 

 a thousand, or be they five millions — is the direct product of the care, 

 industry, labor and exi)ense of the United States; and they would not 

 be there except for that care and industry. 



What is contended for ui»on the part of Great Britain here is the 

 right to prey upon a herd of animals which are in every sense the crea- 

 tion of the labor and industry of the United States and which would 

 not exist — would not exist for the world, would not exist, even for those 

 who thus prey ujjon them, except for the exercise of that care and 

 industry. There is no contradicting that position at all. It is not sus- 

 ceptible of denial, or of doubt. It is absolutely certain that this herd 

 would not exist a day on the Pribilof Islands, nor would it have existed 

 on any day within the last half century, but for the exercise of the care, 

 labor, industry, and self denial by Kussia, and her successor, the United 

 States. 



If the exercise of those qualities in the case of the wild swan, of deer, 

 of bees, and of the other animals to which I have alluded are sufficient 

 grounds and reasons why an award of property should benuide to those 

 who exhibit them, why should it not be made in this case? Therefore 

 I say that upon the plain doctrine of the municipal law, the position of 

 the United States, that these seals are the subject of property, and that 

 they belong to the United States, not only while they are on the islands, 

 but at all times during their migrations, near or remote, is fully estab- 

 lished. 



I mi ght properly leave the argument here. The propositions in respect 

 to property which I have shown to be true in reference toother animals, 

 wild in their nature but reclaimed by man, are true in resi)ect to seals. 

 There are indeed diiferences between seals and the other animals; but 

 the differences are wholly immaterial to the question in dispute. They 

 do not affect it at all. The right of pioperty is awarded in those 

 instances for social reasons and in consequence of great social benefits; 

 and these social reasons and social benefits are as strong — I may say 

 much stronger — in the case of the seals than they are in the case of any 

 other animals to which allusion has been made as being subjects of 

 property after they are reclaimed. It may be said that in the case of 



