210 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



matter of ammal take bad been moderate; but wben tbe number fixed for Idlliui^- 

 i-esiilted, as lias l)een sbown, in au averajje slann'hter of over 10;->,(XiO seals, it bore so 

 larjje a y)r(>))()rti<m to the entire number of animals resoi ting to the islands as to lend 

 nercssarily in the buig run to serious diminution. This deiTcase continued, on tlie 

 whole, in an increasing ratio, being due not only to tbe actual number of seals 

 slaughtered, but also to the numbers lost in various ways iucident.il to the methnds 

 of control and modus operandi on the islands, which loss, though formerly a matter 

 of minor imiiortance (bc^cause counted against a large aniinnl sur])]us), in the face 

 of the greatly decreased numbers, became a very serious addition to the total of dim- 

 inution. In short, I'rom a transcendental i)oint of view, the methods projiosed were 

 appropriate and even perfect, but in practical execution, and as judged by the 

 results of a series of years, they ju-oved to be faulty injurious. 



The President. Will you be kind enongli to remind us of the luaxi- 

 mum annual number of tlie slaughter under tlie Knssian rule? 



Mr. Carter. At first it was somewhere in the neighborhood of 

 3(1,000. In the last years of their occupation, it was increased to some- 

 where from 50,000 to 70,000. 



Sir Charles Kussell. You will find, sir, a table giving the figures 

 at page 13i; of tlie British Commissioners report beginning in 1876 and 

 going down to 18!>1. 



Mr. Phelps. That is mere assumption. 



Mr. Carter. We do not concede tliat to be a correct statement. 



Sir Charles Russell. It purpoi ts to be a correct statement. 



Mr. Carter. It purports to be that; in fact it is not even approxi 

 mately correct. 



The President. You do not know that the Russian Government had 

 the same rule as the American Government had of fixing a limitatio;! 

 for the annual taking? 



Mr. Carter. It did have the same rule. 



The President. The same rule all the time? 



Mr. Carter. After the system was established of limiting the drafts 

 to the males. 



Senator Morgan. In 1847. 



Mr, Carter. The learned Arbitrators will perceive from these pas- 

 sages which I have read from the British report that there is a full and 

 unqnalified concession that the methods thus employed by the Ameri- 

 can Government on the islands are perfect in theory, and the only 

 defect alleged in relation to them is in their practical execution ; and 

 the only particular in which they mention a fault in the execution ot 

 those methods is that they do not confine the draft to a sutticiently lo\y 

 limit. What that limit is they do not attempt to say; but the com- 

 jdaint they make of the execution in these methods is that too large a 

 draft is drawn. My proposition is that there is a point at which it is 

 perfectly safe to nmke a draft without any dauger whatever to the 

 herd. What that ])oint may be is another question. We say 100,000; 

 and shall be able to make that good. 



1 have gone thus far only upon facts which I conceive either to be 

 admitted, or overwhelmingly established — established in such a man 

 uer that we may say they are beyoml dispute. There are a good many 

 other [)articulars in which there is very (considerable conflict in theevi 

 deuce. We have our own assertions in respect to those jtoints upon 

 which this conflict exists; and we shall endeavor to satisfy the Arbi 

 trators that our view is correct; but at this point I choose to say that 

 in my view they are not material u])on this question of prox^erty. I want 

 to state a few of these points which I consider to be immaterial upon 

 this question of property. I can argue this question of property with- 

 out considering any of these disjmted propositions. 



