ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 235 



The President. It might be a result of the present Arbitration. 



Mr. Carter. It might be, and that is one of the considerations which 

 should engage the attention of the Tribunal. It is not only a question 

 of preserving the seals which now exist, but of making the natural 

 resources of the earth available for all their possibilities. Now that 

 industry established and carried on by Russia formerly, and now carried 

 on by the United States is unquestionably a full and perfect right. That 

 is not disputed. It is a lawful occupation. It interferes with the rights 

 of no one else. It is useful to the persons who carry it on, and useful 

 to the whole world, and it has a further utility in the sense that it pre- 

 serves these races of animals and applies the benefit to mankind, while 

 at the same time, preserving the stock. In its several aspects, there- 

 fore, it is a full and perfect right; and that right is not disputed. What 

 is asserted against it, is, that the United States have no right to pre- 

 vent other industries which come in conflict with it. It is said on the 

 part of Great Britain : " We also have an industry in these seals and 

 our industry is a right just as much as yours is a right." JSTow of course 

 the validity of that argument rests upon the question whether it is a 

 right; we are thus again brought face to face with the question whether 

 this practice is a right. If it is a tcrong, then of course there is no 

 defence for it. Upon what ground can it be defended as a right ? What 

 moral reasons support it? I know of none; I hear of none suggested, 

 I hear of no consideration in the nature of a moral right suggested as 

 a foundation upon which that pelagic sealing can be sustained. The 

 only grounds I hear mentioned are two — first, that the seal is a free 

 swimming animal; and, secondly, that the seas are free^ and there is 

 no municipal power which can restrain the pursuit which is thus carried 

 on on the high seas. That assertion, therefore, rests upon the assump- 

 tion that there is a right to destroy any free-stvimming animal in the 

 sea. However great a blessing, however useful that animal may be, it 

 is said by the pelagic sealers " we have a right to destroy it, a right to 

 pursue it, although that pursuit involves its destruction." But they 

 have no right to destroy a free-swimming animal or any other animal, 

 either by pursuit on the sea, or by pursuit on the land. If you are 

 taking only the increase, you may have a right, but if you are destroy- 

 ing the race, then your right is gone. To be sure, there are many free- 

 swimming animals in the sea — the herring, the cod, the menhaden, the 

 mackerel — the taking of which must necessarily be indiscriminate. 

 You cannot take them in any other way; you cannot otherwise appro- 

 priate them to the uses of mankind. Mankind must seek them in that 

 way, or do without them. And therefore the pursuit of those animals 

 on the high seas is right enough. And in this connection I have 

 observed that nature, in the enormous provision which she makes, of 

 these animals, supplies barriers against their destruction by man. But 

 the seal is an animal which can be taken and applied to the uses of 

 mankind without diminishing the stock, and consequently yoii have no 

 right to adopt another mode of pursuit which sweeps these animals 

 from existence. 



The President. Is there no other mode of regulating by usage to 

 prevent the exhaustion of the stock? I mean are there not certain 

 rules in regard to other species besides the seal? 



Mr. Carter. I know of no other in respect to these other classes of 

 fishes in the high seas that have been or can be applied for the purpose 

 of preventing their destruction. 



The President. Do you contend that selection confers the right of 

 property? 



