OKAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 203 



important bearing it has. N'o man and no nation can say with regard 

 to the fish in the sea that they can protect them. If they are in dan- 

 ger of destrnction, they cannot say "We can enforce by our power a 

 limitation of the annual draft to the annnal increase." There may be 

 some fish as to which that may perhaps be said. When a more accu- 

 rate knowledge is had of the habits of fishes, it may come to be ascer- 

 tained that the inhabitants of some shores can protect some races of 

 fishes which resort to that shore, provided other persons are required 

 to keep their hands oft'. 



The President. And that would give a right of appropriation, in 

 your view? 



Mr. Carter. Yes; that would tend that way. If they could furnish 

 the protection and no one else could. That would be the tendency of 

 my argument. I am glad to see that the learned President catches it. 



The consequence of the proved facts is that the fur-seal cannot main- 

 tain itself against unrestricted human attack. It cannot do it. That 

 is admitted here. We have a joint report by all these Commissioners 

 which is to the effect that the fur-seal is at present in the process of 

 extermination, and that this is in consequence of the hand of man. 

 The treaty itself under which you are sitting admits it: for it admits 

 the necessity of regulations designed to prevent extermination. The 

 cause of this diminution, the grounds and reasons which are working 

 the extermination of the seal are disputed between us. My learned 

 friends upon the other side say it is this taking of the seals on the 

 islands that is, in part, causing it. We say it is the pursuit of them 

 by pelagic sealers; but, whatever the cause, there is no dispute between 

 us as to the fact. These seals are being extermiiuited; and that means 

 that the race cannot maintain itself against the hand of man unless the 

 assaults of man are in some manner restricted and regulated. As I 

 have already shown, this consequence of the inability of the race to 

 maintain itself is inseparable from the killing of females. That race 

 cannot maintain itself unless the slaughter of females is prohibited. 

 It is a mammal, producing one at a birth. The rate of increase is 

 extremely slow, and that increase can be cut down by a very small 

 annual killing of the mothers from whom the offspring is produced. 

 This inability of the race, this infirmity of the race to hold its own in 

 presence of the enormous temptation to slaughter which is held out to 

 man, is inseparable from the slaughter of females. The killing of males, 

 if it were excessive, would produce the same effect. No doubt about 

 that. We do not dispute, or deny, that. All we say is that you can 

 carry the killing of males to a certain point without any injury whatever. 



The President. Mr. Carter, may I beg to ask you a question? 



Mr. Carter. Certainly. 



The President. The American Company, the lessees of the Pribilot 

 Islands, consider the fur-seals as their property, or the property which 

 they are to dispose of, according to the grant by the United States. If 

 they consider that they have a direct right to these animals do you not 

 think they have reason to complain that the United States allowed 

 pelagic fishing by some of their fishermen on the American coasts, and 

 can you state, as a matter of fact, whether the Company, or the lessees, 

 have applied to the United States Government to make an enactment 

 to prevent that fishing, that pelagic sealing, according to the right 

 which has been given to them. If 1 understand well your purport, and 

 if your purport is the same as the lessees or the American Company, 

 it is an injury to them that pelagic sealing should be carried on and 

 practical destruction of female seals be carried on by American fisher- 



