ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 215 



Take the case of useful domestic auiraals; the same thiiio- is true. 

 Man may own as many as he can acquire and breed; and tliey may 

 roam over almost boundless areas, over his own property or the prop- 

 erty of the public, and still his title is com]dete and perfect. In the 

 barbaric ages a man could own but few, and when the number increased 

 they became the property of the tribe; but that condition of things 

 would not support the demands of civilization. We must appeal to the 

 cupidity of men and arouse them to labor and to efforts for the purpose 

 of increasing the stock of domestic animals; ami therefore a title is 

 awarded to as many as a man can bring into existence. The great 

 prairies and wastes of the inteiior of the United States, and of large 

 regions in South America are fed upon by countless herds, and yet the 

 title of the owner to every one which he can identify is distinct and 

 absolute. That is for the same reason. You could not liave them unless 

 you gave that ownership. And society could not enjoy the benetit 

 unless it paid this price. 



You will see that in all these cases the owner is enabled to preserve 

 the principal thing without destroying it and yet produce a great 

 increase for the use of mankind. The cultivator of land, the title to 

 which is assigned to him, does not waste it. He does not destroy it. 

 He does not convert it into a desolation, he does not extract its rich- 

 ness from it and then leave it incapable of further product. He cul- 

 tivates it. He manures it. He not only extracts a great product from 

 it, but he increases its ability for further production; and so also in 

 regard to the races of animals. The stock is not invaded so long as 

 you allow individuals the ownership of whatever they are able to ])ro- 

 duce. They preserve the stock everywhere, and they increase over- 

 whelmingly the product which can be afforded for the uses of mankind. 



But step for an instant to the cases in which this result (-annot be 

 accomplished; and we see that society at once refuses to allow indi- 

 vidual property beyond actual, literal, possession. It refuses to consider 

 the things as the subjects of exclusive ap])ropriation. Take the birds 

 of the air, the tishes of the sea — wild animals generally. A man cannot 

 by any exercise of his art or industry so deal with them as to furnish 

 their increase for the use of mankind without destroying tlie stock. He 

 cannot do it. He can only take them indiscrinunately. He can prac- 

 tice no husbandry in relation to them; and if they maintain their exist- 

 ence under his attacks it is not because of any effort, art, or labor on 

 his part, but because nature has made such an enormous provision that 

 they are practically inexhaustible, or becanse nature has furnished them 

 with such facilities for esca])e that man cannot capture any considera- 

 ble number of them. Consequently in reference to all of tliese wild 

 animals where the award of ownership to an individual man would pro- 

 duce no great social blessing, in other words, where there are no so. ial 

 reasons for awarding exclusive possession, an exclusive possession is not 

 awarded, and, the thing is regarded as incapable of exclusive appro- 

 priation. 



But, even in the case of wild animals, although the institution of 

 property in respect to them wonld not accomplish any social good, would 

 not prevent their extermination, still society resorts to the best means 

 in its power to prevent their destruction, and it assumes a sort of cus- 

 tody over them by the establishment of what are called "game laws," 

 more or less effective for presei ving the wild races of animals, but still 

 ineffective where the demand tor them is so great and their facilities 

 for escape so little that the ravages of man become destructive. 



