220 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



ours, defeiisible upon like grounds, that is, moral grouuds." If that 

 could be set up, it would raise a doubt. But what is there? What 

 rhjht is there in these pelagic sealers — for they are all we have to deal 

 with — to contend against this conclusion? As near as I can ascertain 

 it is asserted to be a right to pursue the animal because it is a free 

 swimminff animal., in the first place, aiui because, in the next place, 

 there is no poioer on the sea to prevent it. That does not suggest n 

 principle of ri(/ht at all. How can it be said that there is a right to 

 pursue an animal because he su-ims freely in the sea? What ground is 

 that upon which to attempt to establish a right, I should like to know. 

 Why should one be i)eriniTted to destroy a nseful race of animals, a 

 blessing of mankind, because they happen to move freely in the sea? 

 I cannot conceive that that suggests even the shadow of a right. The 

 other ground asserted as a defense for pelagic sealing, namely, that 

 however perfect the property right of the United States may be, they 

 have no power to interfere with pelagic sealers on the high seas, is 

 wholly untenable. It seems to amount to the solecism that there may 

 be a right to do a ivrong upon the sea! 



There is no more right to do a tvrong upon the sea than there is upon 

 the land. What is this right to carry on pelagic sealing? What is 

 this right to take these free swimming animals in the sea, mostly 

 females heavy with young, or suckling their pups? What kind of a 

 right is that? We have seen that it necessarily involves the destruc- 

 tion of the animal. How can you connect the notion of a right with 

 that? It is a right to sweep from the face of the earth a useful race of 

 animals, and to dejn-ive mankind of the benefit they attord. What sort 

 of an act is that, to destroy a useful race of animals? It is a crime; is it 

 not? How else can it by any possibility be correctly described? It is 

 a crime against nature. It is a defiance of natural law; and if it were 

 committed within the boundaries of any civilized and Christian state, 

 would be punished as a crime by municii)al law. It has no charactei-- 

 istic, and no quality, except those whicli mmk a crime. What good 

 does it accomplish? Does it give to mankind a single seal which can- 

 not be taken in a cheaper, and a better way? I have already shown 

 that the entire product of this animal can be taken upon the islands by 

 a less expensive method, and in a way such as to ])reserve the quality 

 of the skins in a better manner. It does no good in any particular to 

 mankind. It is possible that seals may be afforded at a less price for 

 a short time by the practice of pelagic sealing. Of course if you can 

 put upon the market, in addition to what is taken upon the islands, 

 another hundred thousand seals taken in the water, you can temporarily 

 reduce the price; and, although the method of taking them is more 

 expensive, the world may get them for a while at a less cost; but you 

 are taking the stock, are you not? You are not taking the increase. 

 The question, and the only question, is how the increase of the animal 

 can be best taken for the purposes of mankind. We have no right to 

 anything else. Anything else is destruction. Therefore these sealers 

 are doing no good to mankind. They are doing no good to anybody. 

 They are destroying the occupations of the large number of manufac- 

 turers, of Avhom there are thousands, residing in Great Britain and 

 whose occupation consists in manufacturing the skins for market. 

 Their occupation is taken away by it. They are doing injury in every 

 direction. They are doing no good to anyone, not even themselves, 

 for their own occupation will be gone in a few years. Nature has so 

 ordered it that any juirsuitor occupation like this which consists simply 

 in destroying one of the blessings of Providence, does no good, and 



