292 ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 



The case of the seals, we submit, is stronger than any of these. 

 There is no case that stands so close to the case of an absolutely domes- 

 tic animal without being, if yon ])lease, in every sense a domestic animal 

 as that of the seal. In that particular it is, as I said sui generis. As 

 stated in the argument: 



Their home on the American soil is not only of their own selection, but is a perma- 

 nent home necessary to their existence, and in respect to which they never lose the 

 unimum revertendi. 



And we know from the records that for a century back that animtts 

 revertendi has been constantly and tenaciously exhibited and exercised. 



The municipal law has been fully gone into by Mr. Carter, and I pass 

 from that subject. 



Now, have we any rights under the international law? The jn'opo- 

 sition is laid down in this way and supported by authorities to which I 

 will call the attention of the Tribunal: 



But upon the broader principles of international law ap]>lical)le to the case, the 

 right of jiroperty in these seals in the United States Governineut l)econies still clearer. 

 Where animals of any sort, wild in their original nature, are attached and become 

 appurtenant to a maratime territory, are not inexhaustible 



I ask the attention of the Tribunal to that element in the case, thus 

 making them ditterent from the boundless schools and shoals of fish 



in tlu'ir ])r()duct, are made the basis of an important industry on such territory, and 

 would be exterminated if thrown open to the general and unrestricted pursuit of 

 mankind, they become the just ])ro]ierty of the nation to which they areso attached, 

 and from which they derive the ]n-otection without w hich tliey would cease to exist, 

 even though in the habits or necessities of their life some of them pass from time to 

 time into the adjacent sea, beyond those liuuts which by common consent and for the 

 purposes of defense are regarded as constituting a part of the ualioniil territory. In 

 such a case as this, the herd and the industry arising out of it become indivisible; 

 and constitute but one proprietorship. 



This high court will observe that in discussing the question of the 

 industry, a distinction is made between ])roperty in that industry of 

 which the herd is a part, and iiroperty in the individual seal. I am not 

 in the slightest degree disposed here to minimize the force of the argu- 

 ment that this herd is ours, and every individual seal belongs to the 

 United States; but my purpose is just as well accomplished if the high 

 Tribunal takes the view that even without going to that extreme length, 

 if it be extreme, the United States has an interest in the industry — 

 this industry founded by IJussia and nurtured, fostered and protected 

 by itself — that the industry itself is one susceptible of protection by 

 international law: 



What is the right of property in the herd as a whole, in the seas, and under the 

 circumstances, in which it is thus availed of by the United States Government as the 

 foundation of an important national concern, and in which it is assailed by the Cana- 

 dians in the manner complained of? When this point is determined, all the dispute 

 that has arisen in this case is disposed of. 



In sui^port of this most important proposition Pufifendortf andVattel 

 are botii cited. I will not take the time of the Tribunal to read at 

 length what they say, but simply content myself with an extract from 

 each with regard to iishing. How different the case of fishing is from 

 the pursuit of the seal, I have already tried to show; and how much 

 strongf'i- the Case of the United States with regard to seals is than the 

 illustration sought to be drawn from fishing in the common acceptation 

 of the word. This is what Puft'endorfl" says: 



