ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 257 



interfering: as it does with the lawful rights and industry of the United 

 States, it has the right to prevent it, and to prevent it by the employ- 

 ment of force. 



We have two grounds, therefore, upon which we assert the existence 

 of this right to the employment of force: The first is, the reason and 

 necessity of the thing; because the declaration that we have a right 

 involves the concession that there is some means of defending it. To 

 say that a nation has a right which at the same time the citizens of 

 every other nation may trami)le upon and violate with impunity, is to 

 commit a solecism. Such a thing as that would have none of the char- 

 acteristics of a right. 



We defend it, in the next place, upon the practice and usage of 

 nations. Wherever a nation is shown to have a right upon the high 

 seas which is endangered by the wrongful acts of tlie citizens of other 

 nations, there, according to the usage and practice of nations, at all 

 times, in peace or in war, that right has been defended by the employ- 

 1) "ut of reasonable force. 



Now, Mr. President, I have concluded my argument uj)on the ques- 

 tion of the right to employ force u]>on the high seas. I must now con- 

 template the possibility that this Tribunal may decide either that the 

 United States has no propert}^ in the seals, and no property interest 

 in the industry carried on upon the Islands of which pelagic sealing 

 is a wrongful invasion ; or that, if it has those rights, or either of 

 them, it still has no power to protect them by the seizure and con- 

 demnation of a vessel engaged in the i^ractice of pelagic sealing. In 

 either of those cases, the CJnited States would have no power to protect 

 the seals from extermination, and consequently, the subject would be 

 left, to borrow the language of the Treaty, in stick a condition as to 

 require this Tribunal to proceed to the consideration of the last matter 

 which is submitted to it, namely, what regulations it is necessary to 

 establish for the purpose of preserving the seals. 



Sir Charles Eussell. I beg my friend's- pardon for a moment. Mr. 

 President, I wish to re-state the position which at an early part of these 

 proceedings we took upon the question of the order of proceeding. We 

 maintained, and maintain, that the questions of right raised in various 

 forms, the first five questions of article VI, are distinct from, and are 

 to be dealt with in argument, distinct from the question raised in article 

 VII, which is the matter of regulations. I understand, however, from 

 my learned friend that it would be a convenient thing for him to be 

 allowed to continue his discussion and end his address to the Tribunal, 

 and to cover in that address his views upon the question of regulations. 

 I do not, therefore, ask any opinion from tlie Tribunal as to whether 

 that course ought or ought not to be permitted. I interpose no obsta- 

 cle; but I wish to intimate to the Tribunal that we do not recede from 

 the position we took here, and we shall respectfully claim the right to 

 present complete, by my learned friends and myself, our argument upon 

 the question of right, and not mix up with that question of right the 

 entirely se])arate and distinct question embracing different considera- 

 tions wliich touch the matter of regulations. With that respectful 

 representation of our views to the Tribunal, I do not further interpose. 



The President. We thank you. Sir Charles, for the views which 

 you take of the manner of proceeding. The Tribunal have agreed that 

 they would allow the counsel of either party to proceed in their argu- 



B S, PT XII 17 



