ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 239 



Mr. Carter. Yes; we liave tbe right to carry on the industry upon 

 the ishinds; and, having that right, when the carrying on of the indus- 

 try is lire vented by wrongful acts in other places, we have the right to 

 protect ourselves by repressing those acts. Now the pearl fisheries of 

 Ceylon are another instance, as also the coral-beds in certain parts of 

 the world which are protected by the laws of the nations that are situ- 

 ated contiguous to them, and in some instances for the benefit of the 

 citizens ot those nations only. In the American Case we have referred 

 to a great number of instances where laws have been passed to estab- 

 lish and iH'eserve, govern and regulate, fisheries and other pursuits 

 carried on on the high seas. • Now the general answer to that which 

 Great Britain makes is, that these laws, wliether the laws of sovereign 

 states, or of their colonial dependencies, are designed to operate only 

 on their own citizens, and are not aimed at the citizens of other nations, 

 and that they do not, therefore, furnish any support to the assertion 

 that they may be operative against the citizens of other nations. It is 

 said that they are only designed to regulate the conduct of citizens of 

 the nations by whom they are made. It is not my jiurpose to go 

 through the particular instances in which these regulations have been 

 adopted, for it would occupy altogether too much time. In general, I 

 suppose that though these regulations were drawn in terms limited to 

 the citizens of the nations by whom they are passed, yet in reality they 

 are designed to be operative upon citizens of all nations; otherwise 

 they would serve only to facilitate a fuller enjoyment of the benefits of 

 the industry by the citizens of other nations, without the competition 

 and rivalry of the nation by whom they are passed; which I do not 

 suppose is their intent. But there are several instances of rules and 

 laws respecting the practice of these industries on the high seas which 

 are admitted by the counsel for Great Britain to be operative upon the 

 citizens of other nations. Turning to the Argument on the part of 

 Great Britain, page 59, we find this: 



It is next submitted — 



That international law recognizes the right of a State to acquire certain portions 

 of the waters of the sea and of the soil under the sea, and to include them within 

 the territory of the State. 



This affords a legitimate explanation of the cases of foreign extra-territorial 

 fishery laws cited by the United States, quite apart from any question whether they 

 apply to foreigners or not. 



But it affords no justification for, nor are they analogous to, the Alaskan Seal 

 Statute, as is contended by the United States. 



The territory of the nation extends to low-water mark; but certain portions of 

 the sea may be added to the dominion. For example, the sea which lies inter fauces 

 terrce, and, in certain exceptional cases, parts of the sea not lying inter fauces terrce. 



The claim api)lies strictly to the soil under the sea. Such claim may be legiti- 

 mately made to oyster beds, pearl fisheries, and coral reefs; and, in the same way, 

 mines within the territory may be worked out under the sea below low-water mark. 



Isolated portions of the high sea cannot be taken by a nation iinless the bed on 

 ■which they rest can be jihysically occupied in a manner analogous to the occupation 

 of land. 



These principles, though they explain legitimately all the examples of foreign laws 

 dwelt on by the United States, show also that no right to, or on, so vast aji area of the 

 high sea as Behring Sea can be acquired. Nor has any such claim ever been made. 



Now, we have it admitted here that it is competent to particular 

 nations to assert for themselves the exclusive benefits of an industry 

 connected with oyster-beds, pearl-fishery beds, and coral reef beds, 

 although they are out on the high seas beyond the territorial three- 

 mile limit, and to assert that right against the citizens of other nations. 

 They are obliged to make that admission, for it is impossible to examine 

 the various statutes which have been passed by indej)endent states 



