244 ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 



The seal is exhaustible. There is not enough for all, and they are 

 entitled to challenge for themselves the benefits of this industry in 

 couseciuence of tliese advantages, and in consequence of the steps 

 which they have taken to improve them. 



I cannot think that there is any sound answer to an assertion of the 

 riglit of a property interest in this industry placed ui)on that basis, 

 and this, too, irrespective of a property in the seals themselves. 



That concludes my argument upon this question of the property 

 interest of tlie United States in the industry established upon the 

 islands, irrespective of a property interest in the seals. 



I now pass to the consequences of the establishment of those rights 

 for Avhich 1 have contended so far as they involve the question, what 

 action the United States may take for the purpose of i)rotecting them- 

 selves in the enjoyment of such rights. 



I must assume, in the first i)lace, that if she has the right of prop- 

 erty in the seals themselves, or a right to the exclusive enjoyment of 

 this industry of taking seals, in consequence of her natural advantages 

 and of the exhaustible character of the product, she has the authority 

 in some manner to enforce such right. Otherwise we should be talk- 

 ing to no purpose. What is a right which there is no means of enforc- 

 ing? It would be mere words. It would amount to nothing at all. 

 There would be nothing substantial about it. Such things are not the 

 subject of discussion. When it is said that a man, or a nation, has 

 certain rights of property, it means that they have rights which can be 

 enforced in some manner. IIoiv shall they enforce them? That is the 

 question. What acts may the United States do? Can they extend 

 their sovereignty over the seas to an illimitable extent wherever it may 

 be necessary to protect the right? No; they cannot. We make no 

 assertion of that sort. We could not substantiate it, if we did. The 

 sovereign jurisdiction of a nation, is bounded by her territory, with 

 an addition which carries, to a certain qualified extent, her sover- 

 eignty over a distance on the seas commonly taken as three miles. 

 Beyond that the sovereign jurisdiction of the nation cannot be extended. 

 Beyond that her laws, as laws, have in general no force or operation. 

 Beyond that her legislative jjowers have no effect. All that we take to 

 be admitted. 



Sir Charles Eussell. You mean as against those who are not 

 subjects or citizens? 



Mr. Carter. Yes; against those who are not subjects or citizens. 

 That is what I mean. If her legislative power extended over the sea, 

 she would have a right, of course, to legislate for everybody that came 

 within the limits of that legislative power. We make no such preten- 

 sion as that. This supreme legislative jurisdiction must be bounded 

 necessarily by some line, and that line is, for the boundary of her 

 absolute legislative jurisdiction, high-water mark. It does not go 

 beyond that, although she may extend it, for most purposes, over a 

 further space which is commonly taken to be — I do not mean to say it 

 is absolutely limited to that, but is commonly taken to be — a distance 

 of three miles; but even there her legislative power is not absolute, for 

 she cannot exclude the passage of foreign vessels over her waters. 

 She cannot, as she can do with regard to her territory, exclude foreign- 

 ers from it. Over the land she has an absolute power of exclusion; 

 but over these territorial Avaters, although she may generally extend 



