242 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



of tlie bottom in any place in the seas, irrespective of tlie question 

 wlietlier tliere was a natural advantage to a particular nation or not; 

 and sucli right to occupy the bottom certainly does not exist. Nor can 

 you occupy the bottom of the sea. It is not susceptible of occupation, 

 unless the law should choose to declare that it should be deemed to be 

 the subject of exclusive occupation; and as I have alreadj'-, I think, 

 sufficiently shown, the law will not do that merely to gratify the whim 

 or the ambition of any particular individual, or any particular nation, 

 but only for the accomplishment of some great social and general good. 



That right of creating a national industry based upon peculiar natural 

 advantages, and based sometimes upon the mere circumstance that it 

 has been created by rules and regulations, is one that is fully established, 

 in reference to many of several different products of the sea. 



In the protecting of industries of that sort, does the nation extend 

 its jurisdiction over those places? Does it make them a part of its ter- 

 ritory ? Certainly not. It has no right to do that. It is not consistent 

 with the law of nations that it should do tluit. There is no occasion 

 for it to do that. There is no need of it. All that it is necessary for it 

 to do is to enforce such regulations on those phices as are effective and 

 sufficient to protect the right from invasion by the citizens of other 

 nations. 



Now let me bring the case of the seal fisheries on thePribilof Islands 

 before the attention of the Tribunal, and compare them with the doc- 

 trine thus established. What natural advantage have the United 

 States, the owners of those islands? One of the highest; and an 

 advantage, indeed, not attached to the bottom of the sea, but an 

 advantage on the dry land above the sea, which is within their admitted 

 jurisdiction. By the creation and carrying on of this industry there, 

 they have established a business profitable to themselves, highly useful 

 to tlie whole world. Shall they not be able to protect it from invasion ? 

 If the coral beds can be protected from invasion far out at sea, if the 

 pearl beds can be protected from invasion by municipal regulations 

 operative upon the sea, why should not this fishery be protected in the 

 like way? It requires no greater exercise of authority. It requires no 

 straining whatever of the ordinary rules which govern the conduct of 

 nations in respect to their interests. It is a more illustrative instance, 

 by fiir, than the case of the coral beds, or the pearl beds, or the oyster 

 beds; a more illustrative instance for the application of the principle 

 that the nation may protect the industry which has thus been created. 



To nuxke it entirely analogous, if these seals were in some manner 

 attached to the bottom, if they were in the habit of congregating at 

 some particular place on the bottom of the sea, then, according to the 

 doctrine which seems to be made the foundation of the right by our 

 friends on the other side, the United States would have a right to go 

 out and take possession of that bottom, incorporate it into its own 

 territory, and treat it as a part of its own nationality. 



I am sure we assert no such right as that. We do not ask to go to 

 any such length as that. All we ask is the right to carry on the indus- 

 try on our own admitted soil, and to protect it from being broken up by 

 repressing acts upon the high seas which are in themselves essential 

 wrongs. 



Let me defend these particular instances of the coral beds, the pearl 

 beds, and the oyster beds upon the same principles upon which I have 

 defended the assertion of property interest, not only in the seals, but 

 in the seal industry upon the Pribilof Islands. In all these cases, there 

 is a peculiar natural advantage connected with those places and belong- 



