ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 297 



no raiuimiiTii — subject to the regulations of the United States; aud the 

 questiou came up in CoDgress which was the oue that they should adopt. 

 The United States is, I am glad to say, reluctant to go into any busi- 

 ness except that of governing our people; and the less she governs 

 us the more we like it. That is the function of the United States — to 

 do as little governing as possible. To go into seal raising seemed to 

 many men something that should be avoided. Then there was only one 

 other alternative — to form a corporation under the best possible con- 

 ditions for the preservation of the seals, and the ex]>loitation of the 

 industry. The title to all these seals is in the United States. It is 

 appurtenant to its soil. It is an outgrowth of its soil. It is connected 

 with its soil. It is inseparable from its soil. 



The PRESIDENT. At what moment, according to you, do the lessees 

 become owners of the seals"? 



Mr. CouuERT. They never become the owners, if the President please. 

 They have under us, and subject to us, the right to kill the surplus 

 product. When that is done under our supervision, and they have paid 

 the United States a certain tax upon the skin, that skin is absolutely 

 theirs. 



The President. It is only the skin that becomes their property? 



Mr. CouDERT. It IS the skin. 



The President. The dead body does not belong to them then? 



Mr. CouDERT. Well, the body having been entirely valueless no ques- 

 tion has ever arisen on that subject; and I would rather not commit 

 myself to any theory. 



The President. The point is to fix the moment when they become 

 owners. 



Lord Hannen. How about the oil? Is not oil extracted from them? 



Mr. CouDERT. I tliink to no practical extent. 



Senator Morgan. That is taxed also. Oil is taxed. 



Mr. CouDERT. Yes, the oil is taxed ; and the carcass is also used for 

 food. The residents use the carcass for food. 



But I was answering one of the learned Arbitrators, and I come back 

 to the point. It is a test, an excellent test, as to the question on which 

 I thought we yvere agreed; but from Sir Charles KusselTs remark, I 

 think we are not. Senator Morgan's suggestion aftbrds a test as to the 

 correctness of my i^osition with reference to the right of property on 

 the island. We do not dispute that friendly nations may come upon 

 our territory, if they are guided by no bad motive, and animated by no 

 hostility. If, however, they come to these islands in a sealing vessel, 

 with num armed with gatt's and rifles and guns, we know that they are 

 maleftictors. We know that they do not come there to enjoy them- 

 selves. The climate is not one that permits it; and the social ameni- 

 ties are not of the most attractive order. Most excellent gentlemen, 

 some of whom are here present, have lived on these islands, and it 

 would be worth a journey to the islands to visit them; but there is no 

 certainty that their occupations would permit them to extend the hos- 

 pitalities of the place. When men go there in a boat, with certain 

 ap])liances, you may be absolutely certain that they are going there on a 

 raid, especially as they never go there in broad daylight, but select foggy 

 days or cloudy nights. 



Pursuing this suggestion of Senator Morgan, why do we repel raids, 

 and what right have we to repel raids? 



Senator Morgan. That was the point of my inquiry. 



Mr. CouDERT. I do not understand from the other side that they 



