ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 179 



lays down is, that the reluctance of the person in charge of the prop- 

 erty, his opposition to the taking of possession by the salvor, does not 

 detract from the claim of the salvor, but rather enhances it; and if that 

 be true in reference to the master of the ship, I rather think it follows 

 as a necessary consequence that it would be true even if he were the 

 owner at the same time. If the owner of a vessel has the right to say 

 to the salvors, " You must not take possession of it," he can commit 

 that right to an agent. 



It will be my purpose now to endeavor to make an application of 

 these views as to the grounds and reasons upon which the institution of 

 property rests to the particular question which is before us. The gen- 

 eral principles I have gone through at some length. I make no apology 

 for going into them at that length ; for the question which this Tribunal 

 is to try is a question of property as between nations. It is the tirst 

 time, so far as I am aware, that any such question has been submitted 

 to an international tribunal, or indeed to any tribunal at all; and the 

 decision of it, therefore, requires a thorough investigation into the 

 grounds and reasons upon which the institution of property rests. 



In order to apply these views to the case before us it is necessary, of 

 course, that we should have a more particular and precise view of the 

 facts in relation to the fur-seals themselves; we should have a clear 

 knowledge of the facts respecting their nature and habits; the methods 

 by which they are pursued and captured; the dangers which threaten 

 the existence of this species of animal, and the means which we can 

 employ to avert those dangers. 



The Arbitrators will bear in mind one of the general conclusions 

 which I had reached in respect to the right of property was this: That 

 it extended to everything which embraced these three conditions : First, 

 that it was an object of utility and desire to man ; second, that the sup- 

 ply was limited, that there was not enough for all; and third, that it 

 was capable of exclusive appropriation. 



Now, first as to the utility of these animals. That is obvious and 

 conceded. Every part of them is useful to man, their skins, their flesh 

 and the oil which they afford; but their skins are the most useful part, 

 as they furnish a garment of great beauty and utility and which is 

 greatly desired all over the globe. The extraordinary eagerness with 

 which the animals are pursued is full evidence of their utility, and the 

 great prices which these skins bear in the market also evidences that 

 feet so completely that I need not dwell upon it any further. 



Next, as to their nature and habits. Where are we to go for our sources 

 of information upon that topic. What is the evidence before this Tribu- 

 nal to which it can resort for the purpose of informing itself respecting 

 those facts? There are several dasses of evidence. In the first place, 

 there is a large body of common knowledge in respect to animals, their 

 nature and habits, which every intelligent person is supjjosed to pos- 

 sess, and all this may properly be appealed to. In the next place, there 

 are the works of naturalists of recognized authority which may also be 

 appealed to, works, written in whatever language, by men who have 

 given attention to those studies to such an extent as to establish them- 

 selves as authorities upon the topics of which they -treat. In the next 

 place there are the reports of the Commissioners appointed under the 

 terms of the Treaty, which as will be perceived, from examining the 

 treaty, are made evidence; and although the Commissioners could be 

 personally cognizant of only a small part of the facts which it was neces- 

 sary for them to learn, still their reports, and their opinions are made 

 evidence, not only in relation to facts which fell under their observa- 



