ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 207 



tlieir jurisdiction to the Bering Sea. They may have acted upon that 

 assuniptiou — an erroneous one, in my judgment. 



Mr. Justice Haelan. The President refers to the failure of Congress 

 to enact a statute forbidding American citizens from taking seals on 

 the North Pacitic. Supi)osing that Congress could pass such a Ltw, 

 and did, what eflect would that have upon the pelagic sealing, if the 

 subjects of Canada were left at liberty to pursue it"? 



The President. That is another question. 



Mr. Carter. It would tend, possibly, to diminish the attacks, to 

 some extent; how much, would be a question. Of course, it might be 

 argued by the Congress of the United States, it might bo said by Con- 

 gressmen: " If all the world is to be permitted to go u]) there and take 

 the seals, we might as well let our own citizens go. We will not pro- 

 tect the seals against attacks by our own citizens if other people are 

 to be allowed to attack them". 



The President. You want to convince us first and the American 

 Congress afterwards, while you ought to convince the American Con- 

 gress first and us afterwards. That is what I mean. It is merely a 

 point in my mind. 



Mr. Carter. That the American Congress, after this Tribunal shall 

 have established American rights, will hesitate at all in exercising the 

 utmost degree of protection, is scarcely to be apprehended. 



The President. But it might have been in argument before us that 

 the American Congress had already admitted the right. 



Senator Morgan. You will remember that Lord Salisbury, I think, 

 or Lord Rosebery, in discussing the modus vivendi which is now gov- 

 erning this matter, made the objection that the British Government and 

 the American Government would be tying their hands by agreeing upon 

 the prohibition of pelagic sealing during the pendency of this litigation, 

 and permitting other nations to come in and take the seals at their will. 

 Both Governments had to take the rislc of it. 



Mr- Carter. Yes; that is undoubtedly true. But still the observa- 

 tion of the President is correct, namely, that if the United States had 

 a property in these seals and a right to protect them upon its own pos- 

 sessions, it could at all times have prevented its own citizens from taking 

 seals even in the northern Pacitic Ocean. It coukl have done that. It 

 has not done it; and so far as that is an argument bearing upon the 

 merits of this question of property, I must allow it to pass unanswered; 

 but as to the force and weight of it, I must be permitted to say that it 

 does not seem to be very signiticant. 



The President. It merely shows the question is a delicate and dis- 

 puted one. 



Mr. Carter. The policy of passing laws of that character, the direct 

 operation of which wouhl be — allowing that these pelagic sealers were 

 mere marauders — to restrain your own" marauders for the benefit of the 

 marauders of another nation, is not a very obvious one. 



There is one other fact perfectly indisputable in regard to pelagic 

 sealing, and that is this: the moment its destructive effect reaches a 

 point where the maintenance of the industry on the Pribilof Islands 

 ceases to be remunerative — that is, when it reaches that i)oint where it 

 is no longer worth while to maintain that establishment of two or three 

 hundred Indians which are kept upon the islands — then, of course, that 

 industry must be given up; and when that industry is given up, tliat 

 population must be withdrawn. They cannot liv^e there without outside 

 support. And then, of course, all protection to tliose islands against 

 the marauding excursions of people who want to kill them upon th« 



