ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 217 



mind increases, society perceives that it cannot have them nnless it 

 encourages the production of t^iem ; and there is no other way of encour- 

 aging the production except by awarding to the meritorious authors 

 of them all the benelits of a property interest; and it does so. We 

 have had for a very long series of years a property awarded in respect 

 to inventions in the useful arts. The j)rinciple of a monopoly, odious 

 in general, is applied here; and society does not, or rather will not stop 

 there. Tbat extension of the rights of property to inventions in the 

 useful arts did not go so far as to give a right of propertj^ in all the 

 products of the mind. Literary works, the contents of books of every 

 description, were still not the subject of i)roperty. They could be 

 approjniated the world over, by whomsoever i)leased to appropriate 

 them, and without giving any ground of complaint to the author; but 

 all of us understand how gradually and by degrees that has been con- 

 sidered to be a wrong and not in accordance with the principles of 

 natural law, not in accordance with the principles of justice: and so, 

 after a while, the rights of authors in their intellectual products were 

 secured to them by copyright laws which are enacted in every civilized 

 state; and now there is a tendency and disposition and determination, 

 let me say, to carry it still further. An international co])y right, secur- 

 ing the benetits of ownership in the products of the mind all over the 

 world is impatiently awaited and will probably, ere long, be enacted. 



Such, then, Mr. President, is the development of the institution of 

 property. It is the development of the conception of ownership as dis- 

 tinguished from actual possession. The law will award this right of 

 property, and will determine that things incapable of absolute and 

 permanent possession may yet be exclusively appropriated wherever 

 there is a social good which may thus be accomplished. It is thus that 

 human society, proceeding step by step, and from age to age, rears its 

 majestic arrangements, making provision for the satisfaction of every 

 want of man, and every as])iration towards civilization, and shaping 

 and conforming all its methods in accordance with the dictates of nat- 

 ural law. 



What then is the general conclusion in respegt to animals which I 

 conceive to be established by this reasoning? It is this : That wherever 

 an animal, although commonly designated as wild, voluntarily subjects 

 itself to human ]iower to such an extent as to enable particular men, 

 or a particular nation, by the exercise of art, industry and self-denial 

 to deal with that animal so as to take its annual increase and at the 

 same time to preserve the stock, and any taking of it by others would 

 tend to destioy the race it becomes the subject of projierty. That 

 proposition seems to me to be so reasonable upon the mere statement 

 that it ought to be allowed without argument; but I have endeavored 

 to begin at the beginning, and to show that every ground and every rea- 

 son which support s the award of property any where and to any extent, 

 ap]>lies to that case, and makes the animal the subject of property. 



It only remains to apply that conclusion to the particular animal about 

 which our controversy is concerned, namely, seals. I need not, of course, 

 recapitulate again tlie facts. They are all fresh in your recollection. 

 It is enough to say that they do submit themselves voluntarily to the 

 power of man to such an extent as to enable the owners of the Pribylof 

 Islands, to whose power they thus submit themselves, to take by the 

 exercise of art, industry, and self-denial, the superliuous annual increase 

 without destroying the stock; and that is the way and the only way in 

 which the human race under civilized conditions can continue to enjoy 

 the benelits of that blessing of Providence. Unless an award of prop- 



