184 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



PrihylofF Islaiuls, and of the inbahitants of tlie Aleutian Islands, of South-eastern 

 Alaska, of the coast of Hiitish Coliinibiu, and of the .State of Washiiiijton. There 

 are also ri<jlits dependent on loeal position, sncli as those of the (Joverniiieuls possess- 

 ing the breeding islands and those controlling the territorial waters in or adjacent 

 to whicli the seals spend the winter half of the year. Such riglith do not, however, 

 depend on ])osition only, but also on the fact that the seals necessarily tlerive tlieir 

 sustenance from the iish which frequent these waters, which, if not thus consumed 

 by the seals, would be available for ca])tiire by the ])eople of the adjacent coasts. 

 The rights of this kin<l which flow from tlie possession of the breeding islands are 

 well known and generally acknowletlged, but those of a similar nature resulting 

 from the situation of the winter home of the seal along the coast of British Colum- 

 bia have not till lately been fully appreciated. 



124. Referring more particularly to the PribylofF Islands, it must perhaps be 

 assumed that no arrangement would be entertained whidi would throw the cost of 

 the setting apart of these islands as breeding grounds on the United States Govern- 

 ment, together with that of the su]>port of some 300 natives. 



It may be noted, however, tiiat some such arrangement would ofit'er perhaps the 

 best and simplest solution of the present conllict of interests, for the citi/ciis of the 

 United States would still possess c(]ual rights with all others to take seals at sea, 

 and in conse(|nence of the proximity of their territory to the sealing grounds, they 

 would probably become the ])rincii)al beueticiaries. 



125. Any such disinterested protection of breeding islands either by Russia or the 

 United States wouhl possess the extreme simplicity of being entirely under the con- 

 tiol of a single Government, whereas in every other project it lieconies necessary to 

 face the far more difiticnlt problem of international agreement to some code of regu- 

 lations involving an accompanying curtailment of rights. In other words, any such 

 arrangement must be viewed either as a concession of certain rights on the high 

 seas, or a concession of peculiar rights devolving from territorial ))ossession of tiie 

 breeding islands of the seal, m;ide in each case for the purjiose of inducing e(|uiva- 

 lent concessions on the other side in the comnK>n interest. 



126. For ])ractical pnriioses, the main consideration is that any scheme of meas- 

 Tires of prote<ti(in shall absolutely control, so far as may be necessary, any and every 

 method of taking seals; and from industrial considerations, and in order projierlv to 

 d(!termine on reci]>rocal concessions, it is necessary to assume sonu' ruling ]>rinci])le 

 in accordaiH'e with which these shall be governed, and such uiay l>e found, in a rough 

 way, in postulating a parity of interests as between pelagic sealing and sealing on 

 the breeding islands. This would involve the idea that any regulation of the fishery, 

 as a whole, should be so framed as to attbrd as nearly as possible an eqiuil share in 

 benefit or proceeds to these two interests. 



There we see the views upon which the Commissioners on the pait of 

 Great Britain proceeded. They conceived that, here was a conflict 

 between the rights of nations, which must betaken into account in any 

 consideration of measures necessary to the i)reservation of tlie seals, 

 because that conflict between the different rights of nations could not 

 be settled by any scheme of regulations which would in effect take away 

 the supposed right of one nation. In their view the seals must perish 

 before that could be done; and they conceived that tlioy should postu- 

 late a parity of interest between the United States Government having 

 the control of the breeding ])laces, and the ])ehigic sealers who could 

 purstte them at sea All their investigations, their oi)inions and their 

 rei)orts are made upon that basis. In other words, they conceived them- 

 selves to be in charge of the inierests of pelagic sealing, then, for the 

 most part, re])resented by Canada. 



They conceived themselves to be in charge of that interest, and bound 

 to defend it; and conseciuently their report will be found to be from one 

 end to the other a defence of the interest of i)elagic sealing. That is 

 the character of it. I do not mean to complain of this, or to urge it 

 against those distinguished gentlemen who were the authors of this 

 report as any piece of unfairness. I only state the fact that that was 

 their conception of their duties, and that we must take that fact into 

 account in consiuering their rejiort. Ami this is a i)retty decisive fact. 

 In what category does it ])Iace them 1 It makes them partisans at once, 

 just as much dS my learned friends on the other side are. They are 

 defending, fnmi beginning to end, the interest of pelagic sealers. 



