236 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



Mr. Carter. Yes; where selection is possible and necessary as in 

 the case of the seal. 



The President. It is one of the bases of the rii^ht of property. 



Mr. Carter. With the seal indiscriminate slanghter is destructive, 

 and therefore not right, provided there is a mode not involving destruc- 

 tion by which you can select the victims for slaughter. If there are 

 some men who, in consequence of the natural advantages they enjoy, 

 have such a control over the animal that they can make the selection^ 

 that constitutes their right of property. Thus, the United States have 

 indisputably the right of property in respect of the seals of the Pribilof 

 Islands, as long as they are on the islands. But I speak also of their 

 right of proi)erty in them on the high seas outside their jurisdiction. 



Senator Morgan. If the United States have a right of })roperty as 

 full as can be enjoyed, they have it on the land. Is that right lost on 

 the high seas? 



IMr. Carter. That depends upon this consideration — the fiict that 

 they have a control and possession of them on the land, and that that 

 control and possession gives them the power of taking the entire bene- 

 fit of the animal for the use of mankind without diminishing the stock 

 is a ground why they shoukl be awarded a property in the animal, not 

 only while he is on land, but when he is out at sea. 



Senator MoRriAN. My proposition is that those conditions to which 

 you refer do establish the right of property; but does that right of 

 property follow the migration? 



Mr. Carter. After you have once established your right of joroperty 

 on the land, the considerations which I have adverted to, establish it 

 on the high seas. 1 assert the doctrine of a qualified property as in the 

 case of animals commonly designated as wild, such as bees, wild geese, 

 swans and deer; but although the property of man in these creatures 

 is qualified, yet whenever they have the instinct of return as evidenced 

 by the habit of returning — as long as that habit is preserved — the 

 proi)erty subsists, and it subsists as well when the animals are out of 

 the possession of the owner, as when they are in his possession. 



Senator MorCtAN. The difficulty is in the meaning of a word. I think 

 that when a property has been acquired in an animal or any other thing 

 that is capable of enjoyment, in the sense in which you have presented 

 it, the property may be lost when it is out of your possession. But 

 while it is in your possession your property is qualified. 



Mr. Carter. Oh yes; it may be lost by abandoning its home, but 

 while the instinct of return remains, the property subsists. Now, in 

 reference to the seal, it always retains the instinct to return, and the 

 pro])erty subsists wherever it may be in the sea. 



The President. In every individual of the herd? 



Mr. Carter. In every individual of the herd; that instinct is never 

 lost. Now I say we are met face to face with the question whether this 

 pelagic sealing is a rif/ht or not. There cannot be a right to destroy 

 any free-swimming animal, if there is another way by which he can 

 be taken without destruction. I next have to say that what consti- 

 tutes one element of the proi)erty of the United States in the seals, 

 and of their property interest in tliis industry, is that they, the United 

 States, are i^erforming a duty to mankind. They are cultivating and 

 improving an advantage which, in the division of tlie blessings of the 

 earth, has fallen to them. Has any nation the power of taking the 

 increase and yet preserving this race of seals for the use of all man- 

 kind by pelagic sealing, and is there any corresponding dnty on the 

 part of any nation to i)rosecute pelagic sealing? None whatever; it 

 is mere destruction. 



