OBA.L ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 221 



notliing- but evil, in any direction. We say we, the United States, can 

 take tlie entire product of this animal, furnishing it to the commerce of 

 the world in the least expensive and in the best manner. Why do you 

 not permit us to do it? Why break up this employment? There 

 seems to be do reason for it. Then again, as I have already said in an 

 earlier part of my argument, one of the limitations to which property is 

 subject, and especially property owned by nations, is a trust for the 

 benefit of mankind. Those who have the custody of it and the manage- 

 ment of it have a duty in respect to it. Indeed the whole subject of 

 rights should be regaided as one dependent upon duties, rights spring- 

 ing out of duties, rather than duties out of rights. It is the duty of 

 the United States to cultivate that bounty of nature, the possession of 

 which is thus assigned to them, and to make it productive for the pur- 

 poses of the world. That is their duty. Why should they not be per- 

 mitted to perform itf Can a reason be assigned why they shall not be 

 permitted to perform that duty. They can not perfurm that duty, if 

 the animal is destroyed. 



Has the United States even the right to destroy that seal? It has 

 the power. Has it the right f Has it the right to go ui)on those islands 

 and club every seal to death and thus deprive the world of the benefit 

 of themf Certainly not. Have these pelagic sealers any better right 

 to do that than the United States havef I have no doubt that if the 

 United States should wilfully say: "We will destroy that property. 

 Although having the ability to preserve it, we will destroy it" — and it 

 were the case of a piece of property the use of which was absolutely 

 necessary to mankind — if the seal contained some quality which was 

 highly medicinal, a specific against certain diseases which afflict the 

 human race, and the possession of which was necessary in order to 

 enable the human race to withstand such disease — the world would 

 have a right to interfere, take possession of those islands, and discharge 

 those duties which the United States were betraying. What duty have 

 these pelagic sealers in respect to these seals 1 They have none because 

 they cannot do anything but mischief with them. The United States 

 has a duty. It is to cultivate that advantage which in the great parti- 

 tion among nations of the blessings of the earth has fallen to their 

 lot. It is the duty of the United States to preserve it, to cultivate it 

 and to improve it. Shall they not have the power to do it? Is it not 

 the duty of other nations and other men to abstain from interference? 

 It seems to me that nothing can be plainer than that conclusion. 



There is no right, therefore, that can be set up against the claim of 

 the United States. Well, if there were something less than a right, if 

 'there were some inconvenience to which mankind would be subjected, 

 if pelagic sealing were i)rohibited and an exclusive property interest 

 awarded to the United States, we might hesitate; but there is not. 

 There is no inconvenience even. There is indeed a suggestion on the 

 part of Great Britain of an inconvenience in this particular. It is said 

 that it is building up a monopoly for the United States, enabling them 

 to gain a monopoly in the sealskins and thereby acquiie a great profit. 

 Well, I admit that it would be a monopoly. There is always a monop- 

 oly when one particular nation, or particular men, own an entire source 

 of supply. It is not an absolute monoi>oly, for there is a certain com- 

 petition on the part of Eussia and Japan; but it is in the nature of a 

 niouox)oly of course. Where there is an object in nature of which the 

 supply is limited, if the source lies wholly within the power of some 

 particular nation it must necessarily have a monopoly. That is una- 

 voidable. But it is a monopoly to the United States, of course, only 



