ORAL ARGUMENT OF JAMES C. CARTER, ESQ. 273 



from interfering- with the animal at all. There is no other way. You 

 must contrive Regulations which will bring about the same results as 

 would flow from the institution of property. 



Senator Morgan. Do you regard the words "protection" and 

 "preservation" in tiie seventh Article of the Treaty as being strictly 

 synonymous? 



Mr. Carter. "Proper protection and preservation;" — I think those 

 two words are, if not absolutely synonymous, very nearly so. They 

 were employed in order to more fully cover the notion that these seals 

 were to be preserved by being protected. 



We cannot, in this inquiry, lose sight for an instant of what the laws 

 of nature are: they are the very object of our inquiry. These seals are 

 subject to the operation of the laws of nature. Their increase and 

 their decrease follow those laws with a rigid obedience; and in order 

 to contrive measures which will insure the preservation of these 

 animals we must study and ascertain these laws, and, having ascer- 

 tained them, implicitly obey them. They cannot be tampered with. 

 Any violation of them inevitably brings the consequences attached to 

 such violation. 



Now here, in my view, we reach what is really the end of legitimate 

 debate upon this subject. Any further argument must proceed upon 

 the assumption that there is some sort of doubt as to whether the pur- 

 suit of seals on the high seas by the methods of pelagic sealing is 

 destructive or not. I have answered that question. There is not — 

 there cannot be — any reasonable doubt of that. It is not possible to 

 take females in the way and to the extent in which they are taken in 

 pelagic sealing without bringing about the swift destruction of the 

 species, even if all taking of seals on the land were prohibited. There 

 are two things beyond dispute: first, that the young and non-breeding 

 males may be taken up to a certain point without diminishing the birth- 

 rate; and, consequently, without diminishing the stock; and, secondly, 

 that the taking of any female must diminish the birth-rate j;ro tanto. 

 This conclusion does not depend upon scientific knowledge, although 

 scientific knowledge confirms it, but upon common information. Sup- 

 pose that sheep could not be reared except in four places in the world, 

 and that the entire demand of the world had to be satisfied by the pro- 

 duct which could be obtained from those four places. Could any 

 breeding ewes ever be properly killed under such circumstances? Why, 

 very i)laiuly, no ! Every one must be preserved, and the demand would 

 make it profitable to preserve every one of them, just as it is in the case 

 of the seals. If you kill a single female seal you must inevitably 

 diminish the product, not only by that one, but, in addition, by the 

 number of young that that female would bring forth. Of course, as 

 sheep can be produced everywhere, and the market be glutted with 

 them, it is perfectly proper to kill ewes when the production exceeds 

 the demand. But this condition of things never occurs in the case of 

 seals, for the demand is always out of proportion to the supply, being 

 so large that there is an enormous profit on each seal. 



Now, what is the attitude of the United States with reference to this 

 matter of Regulations? Simply that it can propose no Regulation save 

 one; and that is an absolute prohibition upon the killing of seals any- 

 where upon the seas, restricting the killing entirely to the Islands 

 where the rate of increase can be ascertained, where the superfluous 

 males can be taken and killed and thus devoted to the commerce of the 

 Avorld without diminishing the stock. Such a regulation is necessary, 

 absolutely necessary, in its entirety. If we were to propose any regu- 

 B S, FT XII 18 



