284 ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 



After nil, tlieii, tliougli my task in discnssing the facts does not pos- 

 sess those intellectual allurements to this Tril)un;il, or ott'er it those 

 attractions, which it found so completely in the ar<;ument of my 

 learned brother, yet perhaps the utility of my task may redeem it from 

 any reproach that it is lacking in other respects. It is something to 

 be useful: audit will be a great deal if, when I have closed, 1 may 

 contidentiy claim, while admitting that 1 have been tedious, that I 

 have so su])ported by facts the argument of my friend that it has 

 presented tlie whole case of the United States as strongly as it was 

 possible to present it. In this case, as in every other, the most impor- 

 tant part or element of the discussion must reside in the facts; and 

 it is satisfactory to me to know that I may perhaps give this Court 

 some instruction on the only subject as to which 1 am competent to 

 instruct it. The facts in a case like this are like the diagnosis of the 

 physician. I] is ])rescriptions are of no value unless the disease is 

 ascertained and the condition of the ])atient determined: then the 

 applicability of the remedy is readily discovered. It wonld be of no 

 value to us, of still less value to this court, if you should find that in 

 the abstract the arguments of my learned friend are unanswerable, and 

 yet that there were no facts to which they could be attached. 



This is a long preface to say that I shall be mainly confined to the 

 facts; l)ut I shall endeavor — and I shall ask the patience and forbear- 

 ance of the Tribunal — even if there be repetition in my remarks, to 

 make those facts so clear and so strong that there will be no difficulty 

 whatever in applying- the remedy. Tliis Tribunal knows the law. If 

 there were any crevice in it that had been unexplored by their experi- 

 enced and active minds, a flood of light has been poured into the 

 darkness by my learned friend. The only inquiry now remaining is 

 what are the facts upon which this argument is based? 



But I desire, with the indulgence of the court, to be permitted to 

 argue one single proposition of law. It has been touched by my 

 learned friend, and to some extent argued, but it seems to me so 

 important in the consideration of this case, and indeed I may say so 

 vital, that I should not be satisfied if I did not attempt to bring some- 

 thing in addition to what he has stated, because he has not bestowed 

 upon it the minute examination which he has given to all the other 

 questions in the case. I refer to the question of self-defence of our 

 industry. That is stated, and most elal)orately argued, by Mr. Phelps 

 in our printed argument at page 130 and following; and I shall ask 

 your honors to permit me to refer to the points very briefly, leaving 

 you to give that careful perusal to the written argument which it 

 eminently deserves. 



It is manifest that if we have an industry— an industry in the true 

 and accepted sense of the word — an assault upon that industry is an 

 assault upon us. When we speak of self-defence we do not only mean 

 self-defence in the ordinary and elementary meaning; that is to say, 

 an assault upon our ])ersons or upon our most vital interests. I take 

 it that the doctrine of self-defence is set in motion the very instant that 

 any invasion of any right, however slight, is made. It happens in this 

 case— it is the good fortune of the United States that it should thus 

 be — that you may obliterate the seals, everyone of them, that you may 

 encourage the pelagic sealers to do their best, or their worst, as you may 

 choose to consider it; and consent that this race of animals shall be 

 exterminated, as it nuist then be within one or two or three years. It 

 may be that your decision will be such that, we ourselves withdraAving 

 the protection which is the life and I may say the creation of the herd. 



