ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 223 



may pay two or tliree times over for all the labor and all the expense 

 which the gatliering- of the product costs. There is a very large profit. 

 That goes to tlie United States, and to these lessees — is distributed 

 among them. It is exacted, of course, from the citizens of the United 

 States the same as it is from the rest of the world; but it goes to the 

 United States and these lessees. What objection is there to that? Is 

 tliat anything more than a fair remuneration from this bounty of Prov- 

 ideuce which is placed in tlieir custody and in their control, and for 

 their labor, their ettorts, and their exertions in preserving it and fur- 

 nishing it for the use of mankind ? Of course not. It is perfectly fair. 

 It may be the source of a profit. So there are a thousand things in 

 commerce which are the sources of profit to particular nations which 

 have natural advantages over other nations in producing them. The 

 advant.ige is not different in its nature in this case. 



In short it comes to this: That it is only by the exercise of the care, 

 industry and self denial on the part of the Government of the United 

 States that the world can have this blessing. The whole of it is thrown 

 upon the world and the price is determined solely by the buyers and 

 by what they see fit to give. If the owners of the islands should see 

 tit to withhold from the market at any particular time any considerable 

 number of these skins, what would they do with them? How would 

 they gain by that procedure at all? The next year, or the next — some 

 time after that — they would be obliged to throw the part withheld upon 

 the market and that would depress the market so that the loss they 

 would incur in that way would lar exceed any gain that there was any 

 promise of. jSTo, there never can be any temptation for keeping any 

 part of the product, except under very unusual circumstances, such as 

 a decline in the demand owing to some special circumstance, which 

 might induce the j)roprietors of the islands to say: "We think we can 

 do better with the skins next year than this year." But in general they 

 can reap no unfair advantage from the possession of this natural 

 monopoly. 



There is another suggestion I observe in the Case and Argument on 

 the i)art of Great Britain. These meritorious grounds upon which the 

 title of the United States depends are, of course, perceived by the other 

 side, and they seek to find something of a similar nature upon which 

 to support their alleged right. W^hat have they? I have discovered 

 two things which they put forward or suggest. They recognize the 

 natural advantage which the owners of the Islands have, owing to the 

 seals submitting themselves fully to the power of man there and the 

 thing they put against that is this: They say this seal has tivo habitats; 

 one on these islands, and the other in the sea along the coast of British 

 Columbia. That is they seek to attach the seals to British territory, 

 Canadian territory, and say that they have a superior right also 

 grounded upon favorable conditions of locality, etc. 



That does not amount to enough to talk about. Ifc is not an advan- 

 tage which enables them to deal with the seals in any different way. 

 They still cannot take them in any other way than by this indiscrimi- 

 nate iiursuit which sacrifices males and females alike — or females to a 

 larger extent than males. It does not enable them to practice a hus- 

 bandry in respect to the animal, and to give to mankind the benefit of 

 the increase without destroying the stock; and so it should be dismissed, 

 even if it were true in fact. But it is not true in fact. It is only a con- 

 jecture. The seal has no winter habitat. He is on the move all the 

 time; if he has a habitat along the coast of British Columbia, he has 

 the same habitat along the coast of California and Oregon, which is 



