300 ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 



necessities of the otlier side, to be a beacon, perhaps, for future time 

 and future generations, 



Nor do 1 think it necessary here to consider the tliree mile limit, or 

 the (inestion of jurisdiction. These matters are entirely separate and 

 distinct. For the ])nri)oses of this argument we concede to all the 

 nations of the globe — 1 desire to be very careful here of the i)articnlar 

 point that I am on— we are willing to concede to all the nations of the 

 globe the same rights in Bering Sea as Ave ourselves possess: the 

 same right to go and to come, the same right to stay or to leave, the 

 right to do everything that is right, the right to do nothing that is 

 wrong; and thus we always come back to the question whether it is 

 wiong to destroy our property against our will when we are helpless 

 unless we invoke force. 



I desire also to call the attention of the Court before closing this 

 branch of the argument to the fact that it is upon theprincii)les that I 

 have tried to make clear as those for which we contend, that all marine 

 property is held, that is, all that kind of i)roperty that is spoken of in 

 the respective arguments of counsel. Instances are given here, and as 

 my friend, Mr. Carter, has dwelt somewhat upon these points, I shall 

 merely allude to them. Instances ai e given here of cases where great 

 nations have claimed lights outside the jurisdictional limits, the arbi- 

 trary three mile limits, going out twenty miles, thirty miles, titty miles, 

 hundreds of miles; and the coral beds of Great Britain and of Italy, 

 and the fisheries of France have been spoken of — not only to protect 

 coral beds, but to protect oyster beds, to protect seals; for at last Great 

 Britain herself has become alive to the fact that a valuable industry of 

 hers was in process of rai)id destruction, and she has endeavored and 

 is now endeavoring to shield and protect her seals. The arguments 

 that have been made by Mr. Carter, and the few remarks that I am 

 making upon this subject, should not be understood as in any, the 

 slightest, way disi)uting the right of Great Britain, Italy and France 

 to such property. Only I may be permitted to say, and 1 hope that it 

 will not seem presumptuous when I do say it, that the tenure nuist be 

 indeed frail if it rests ui)on the argument stated in the British Case; 

 whereas it is imi)regnable, if I am right and if the arguments used by 

 Mr. Carter are applicable to the case. This pi'o])erty does belong to 

 those nations, not because it happens to rest upon the bed of the sea, 

 but because it is an imltistry belonging to those nations, connected 

 with their territory, and conceded to them, ex necessitate, by the com- 

 mon consent of mankind. 



ViscoNTi DE VjONOS'j'A. I will Say in regard to the observation of 

 Mr. Coudert, that the Italian decrees do not api>ly to foreigners. The 

 decree refers to a regulation, and the regulation refers to a law which, 

 in its first article, says that its zone of ai>p]ication is only in territorial 

 waters. So really that decree does not apply to foreigners; but the 

 industry, in fact, is exclusively carried on by Italian citizens. I must 

 add, however, that this prohibition has now been repealed. 



Mr. CouDEKT. I was coming to that question — the discrimination 

 between citizens and foreigners, and the privilege that that rule would 

 give to foreigners over citizens. Of course, if, as the Arbitrator says, 

 and I desire to be instructed by him 



ViscoNTi DE Venosta. It is merely a question of fact. 



Mr. Coudert. I desire to be instructed by him either on the facts 

 or on the law; and he is quite competent to instruct me on either. Of 

 course if the industry is carried on within territorial waters, this is not 

 applicable at all. I concede that. If it is within your three-mile limit. 



