ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 287 



securing- fisli? They say iu their auswer, "Fisliirig by dyuiunite is 

 unlawful tisliing." By wbat iH'inciple and upon what reasoning is it 

 unlawful"? It is not by some mediieval i)recedent that you can prove 

 this; because fortunately, or unfortunately as you please, iu those times 

 men had not learned that they could blow up houses iu great cities with 

 a handful of dynamite, or destroy regiments of men, or herds of animals 

 by its use. Why is the agency of dynamite to be deprecated rather 

 than the use of gun-powder? Are they not both of them for all prac- 

 tical purposes of destruction absolutely the same ; and if our seals are 

 to be destroyed lawfully to-day by the use of shot-guns and ritles, why 

 may they not, by imi^roved methods of destruction, be more surely and 

 speedily aunihilated f 



To start from a point that is certain, to reach one that may be uncer- 

 tain, have we any rights of property at all as to these seals'? Here for- 

 tunately all concede that we have; and it is said that upon the islands 

 these are as much our property as though they were sheej) or calves. 



Sir Charles Kussell. Certainly not. 



Mr, CouDERT. Well, I gave you credit, and I take it back. I sup- 

 posed that when we held the seal in our hand, I supposed that when 

 we slit its ear, I supposed that when we could put a brand upon it, that 

 it was ours, as nuich as if was a lamb or a ewe. Where the ditterence 

 enters I am unable to say. I have read the argument of the other side 

 with interest, and I supposed that it was conceded that upon our land, 

 in our hands, under our flag, iu our waters, these animals were as abso- 

 lutely our property as this book is mine. I cannot prove it. There are 

 some propositions which seem self-evident. This is one and I shall uot 

 undertake the demonstration. But I would ask: if these seals are not 

 absolutely our property, whose are they? They are not the property 

 of the world. They are not the property of Great Britain : no British 

 subject, no French citizen, no Italian subject, no man from any country 

 in the world may come upon that land without being a trespasser, unless 

 by our permission. Shall it be claimed that a marauder upon these 

 islands may kill one of these seals, may destroy one of these pups, with- 

 out being liable to the laws of the United States? I confess it is a new 

 suggestion to me ; and I will ask the Court to pardon me if, notwith- 

 standing the contradiction of my friend on the other side, I shall assume 

 that our rights over the seals, when they are on our land and in our 

 hands, are absolute and exclusive. We may do with them what we 

 like. To put an extreme case, suppose it were deemed important by 

 the United States to kill every seal upon those islands. What natiou 

 in the world would have a right to interfere? What nation in the 

 world could properly say, if we deemed it good policy, if it were advan- 

 tageous to us, if there were a profit in it, what nation would have a 

 right to say, that we should not be permitted to kill them for our own 

 useful purposes? I take it that the best test of an exclusive property 

 right is tlie question whether or not any other human being may law- 

 fully interfere with the exercise of such assumed right; and until it is 

 shown by the other side that within the three mile limit, and upon our 

 owu shores, under our actual dominion and the protection of our flag, 

 some one else may stay our hand, 1 will assume that the property is 

 ours. Indeed, I understood from the beginning that such was the con- 

 cession, but I care very little whether it is a concession or uot. I take 

 it to be plainly true. 



This much, I think, will be conceded by the other side — that if the 

 sealers come upon our territory and slaughter the seals that are there 

 to be found, whether mothers or pups, they are committing a crime for 



