204 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



men. Do you not think that they have a ri^ht to complain, and I 

 inquire whether they ever did complain to the American Government 

 since 1S81 for instance, which is the date yon state as being the initial 

 date when they began to perceive that pelagic sealing was offensive to 

 their rights. 



Mr. Carter. I think the lessees of the islands would have a moral 

 right to complain to the United States if the United States, having 

 leased these islands to them under certain conditions, allowed their own 

 citizens to carry on pelagic sealing, or any other form of destruction. 

 They would have a moral right undoubtedly to complain and a very 

 strong equity to complain; but under the circumstances they have not, 

 for the very' first thing the United States Government did was to pass 

 laws against it. 



The President. On the islands'? 



Mr. Carter. Oh no; on waters as well. 



Tlie President. In the adjacent waters. It did not pass laws 

 against American fishermen doing it elsewhere? 



Mr. Carter. But the United States Government exercised all the 

 power which Congress at the time supposed it had to prevent pelagic 

 sealing. It sui)posed tliat in prohibiting pelagic sealing over the waters 

 of Alaska — that is the phrase used — it embraced all those waters which 

 it had acquired from Russia by the cession. The western boundary 

 was that line which is seen drawn down there {indicating on map). 



The President. That is not the question. 



Mr. Carter. They, Congress, assumed that " all the waters of 

 Alaska" embrace all that portion of Bering Sea, and that, therefore, 

 their enactments prohibit pelagic sealing over all those waters; and 

 the United States Executive Government has so considered those 

 enactments. It does seize whenever it can, and exercises its utmost 

 diligence in seizing any American vessel caught anywhere in these 

 waters engaged in pelagic sealing. 



Mr. Foster. And always condemns them. 



The President. Tliat is not quite my question. My question is, does 

 the American Company contend, as I understand you to contend, that 

 the owners whoever they be, of the Pribilof herd, have a right of 

 ])roperty or protection in these animals wherever they be; and if they 

 have the right of property and protection, have they a legal right as 

 well as moral right to complain of the United States not punishing 

 pelagic sealing anywhere else wherever the seals may go; for if I under 

 stand your purport they have a right of property or protection any- 

 where — not only in Alaskan waters. 



Mr. Carter. I agree to your suggestion that the lessees of these 

 islands would have a moral right. 



The President. JSTo; I ask you wiiether they have a legal right? 



Mr. Carter. Isot quite a legal right, perhaps, because at the time 

 when their lease was executed and their rights were acquired it might 

 be said to be the fair inter])retation of that document that they took 

 their right to the fur seals subject to the existing condition of things 

 and that if there was any failure on the part of the United States to 

 repress pelagic sealing they took it subject to that failure. I slumld, 

 therefore, not consider that they have what is called a legal right; but 

 I should think at the same time they had a moral ground to say to the 

 United States: "Ycm are the owners of this herd, and being the 

 owners of the herd, and being a nation, you have a right to protect 

 them wherever that herd goes. Having that right and having let the 

 privilege of taking these seals on the Pribilof Islands to us, we think 



