174 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



world made upon this bounty of Providence; but civilization and com- 

 merce come in now, and what is tbe result? The whole world is attack- 

 ing- them. Everybody that wants a sealskin, in Europe, or Asia, or 

 South America, or China is attacking these few remaining herds; and 

 of course there is nothing that can withstand that attack unless civiliza- 

 tion brings along with it some remedy by which it can be resisted and 

 its consequences averted. 



The President. Did those Indians take the seal at sea as well as on 

 the islands? 



Sir Charles Kussell. At sea. 



Mr. Carter. They did. That was their only mode, indeed, of taking 

 them. There were no inhabitants originally on the Pribilof Islands. 



The President. It was the original mode of catching the seal, to 

 take him at sea? 



Mr. Carter. It was the only mode by which they were originally 

 caught. The weapon with Avhich tliey were thus taken was the spear. 



Senator Morgan. Mr. Carter, I understand that the statutes of the 

 United States claim the jiroperty in seals as against their own citizens, 

 as an absolnte right? 



Mr. Carter. Yes. 



Senator Morgan. They protect them by criminal, penal enactment? 



Sir Charles Kussell. There is no statute that says anything about 

 property in seals. 



Mr. Carter. There is a statute — it does not say anything about it, 

 but it has the effect. It is the effect of laws we are speaking about. 



Senator Morgan. It forbids citizens taking seals at all, or holding 

 any i)roperty in them. 



Mr. Carter, Yes. 



Senator Morgan. Suppose this Tribunal should hold that the United 

 States Government have no property in seals, either absolute or quali- 

 fied; then following that decision, would it be the moral duty of the 

 United States to repeal her statutes on that subject? 



Mr. Carter. No; I hardly think it w^ould be. As a matter of 

 moral duty, I think the United States, notwithstanding such a decision 

 of this Tribunal, would be well justified in saying that to allow those 

 animals to be destroyed upon the high seas is an inhuman and bar- 

 barous practice which they, at least, would forbid, so far as they could 

 do it. 



Senator Morgan. Suppose the United States should conclude to 

 repeal her laws on that subject; what would become of the seals? 



Mr. Carter. The seals will disappear, whether she repeals her laws 

 or not, if pelagic sealing is allowed to continue. It is not worth while 

 to discuss — at least, I so think — as to what the fate of these seals will 

 be if pelagic sealing is permitted. Of course, following up the sugges- 

 tion of the learned Arbitrator, we can easily see this; tbat the moment 

 when from any cause it ceases to be remunerative to the United States 

 and the lessees of the Pribilof Islands to maintain a watch over those 

 islands, they will leave the islands and give up the watch, and that 

 moment, of course, the seals are gone; because they then will be sub- 

 ject to the depredations of every marauder who chooses to go* there. 

 They will go then as they have gone on the islands of the Southern 

 Pacific. The moment the guard is taken from the Pribilof Islands, the 

 fate of the seals is fixed. 



I must finish this line of my argument by summarizing the conclu- 

 sions which I think I have established. They are: 



