ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 241 



those cases it is perfectly justifiable. It is where there is a natural 

 advantage, within a certain proximity to the coast of a particnlar nation, 

 which it can turn to account better than the citizens of any other nation. 

 In such cases, if the particular nation is permitted to establish and 

 carry out a system of national regulation, it may furnish a regular, con- 

 stant supply of a product of the seas for the uses of mankind, which 

 product, if it were thrown open to the whole world, would be destroyed. 

 That is reasonable. That stands upon the principles which I have been 

 asserting. That is a solid foundation; but it does not rest upon any 

 notion of a right of occupying the bottom. It rests upon the fact that 

 there is a natural advantage — a particular locality oflering advantages 

 to a particular nation, which, if improved, will lead to the prosecution 

 of a useful and profitable industry, useful to the nation, and useful to 

 the world. 



Under those circumstances, if the contiguous nation is permitted to 

 cultivate undisturbed that natural advantage, free from the invasion of 

 others, that industry can be profitably carried on, but if all come in, it 

 is broken up. In such cases, therefore, the nation which enjoys this 

 advantage says to other nations, rightfully: "Here is an advantage 

 which Providence has placed within our reach, rather than in yours. We 

 can turn it to account; you cannot. We can use it so that it may pro- 

 duce its natural advantages. In order to do that, it requires regulation. 

 It must not be used at all times. It must be allowed certain periods of 

 rest. The animals which form the basis of it are at one time of the 

 year breeding, and should not be disturbed. There are times when the 

 industry should be pursued; times when the industry vshould be closed. 

 That cannot be accomplished without national regulation. We have 

 done that. We have created an industry. There is a particular popu- 

 lation of ours devoted to the work. Now, you must let us prosecute it 

 alone. It is not reasonable, it is not fair, it is not just, that you should 

 come in here after we have created this advantage and despoil it, for 

 a mere temporary gain. You will not come habitually, you will only 

 come occasionally; and you will interfere only with the effect of ruining 

 us, without reaping any permanent advantage to yourselves." 



Senator Morgan. Mr. Carter, in point of fact, are these Ceylon pearl 

 fisheries and the coral fisheries of which you spoke held subject to the 

 right of free navigation to commerce? 



Mr. Carter. So I understand. I do not understand that commerce 

 can be prohibited over them. Oh no; surely not. There is no occasion 

 to prohibit commerce. It is only the regulation of the industry that is 

 insisted upon. 



So I have to say that upon conceded principles there is a right in a 

 nation to protect an industry for which it has natural advantages, and 

 which it can create, preserve, and improve by means of rules and regu- 

 lations which it alone has the power to adopt and to enforce. It is con- 

 ceded that this may be done in the cases to which I refer of the oyster 

 beds, the pearl beds, and the coral beds, even though they lie far out- 

 side the three mile limit. 



If they are so situated as to be the special advantage of a particular 

 power, and that particular power chooses to improve that natural 

 advantage by the creation of an industry, it establishes a right which 

 it can defend from invasion by the citizens of other nations. The 

 explanation of this which is attempted to be made in the printed argu- 

 ment of the other side is that it depends upon an ability to occupy the 

 bottom. That does not explain it. That furnishes no ground of reason 

 whatever. If it were true, it would justify the occui^ation of a portion 

 B S, PT XII 16 



