ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 301 



Sir Charles Eussell might object to it on the groinid that he objects to 

 our owning the seals on our own land. How Italy is to own coral beds 

 three miles away, if we are not to own seals on our own territory, I do 

 not know. But there is a question that I will come to in a moment, viz, 

 how fiiY these statutes apply to citizens and not to aliens. However, I 

 am much obliged for the correction, and of course if they are within 

 territorial waters, I leave the Italian coral fisheries out of the case. 

 But one illustration is as good as ten, and it is manifest that in some 

 of these cases here cited the protection g'oesinuch further than the limit 

 of territorial waters. On page 1G7 of the Argument it apx)cars that as 

 far back as lc>G3, 



The taking of seal, iu whatever coiintry they have been found, has been in an 

 especial manner the sul)Ject of legislative and governmental regulation in the open 

 sea. And in such actions Great Britain and Can:ida have been conspicuous. 



By an act of the British Parliament passed in 1863, the colony of New Zealand was 

 made co-extensive with the area of land and sea bounded by the following parallels 

 of latitiule and longitude, viz., 33^ X., 53" S. ; 162^' E., 115^ W. The soutlieastern 

 corner of this parallelogram is situated in the Pacific Ocean over 700 miles Irom the 

 coast of New Zealand (26 and 27 Vict., ch. 23, sec. 2). 



In 1873 the legislature of New Zealand passed an act to protect the seal fisheries 

 of the colony, which provides: 



(1) For the establishment of an annual close season for seals, to last from October 

 1 to June 1. 



Here let me be permitted to say I do not care ivhat the legislation 

 is, if there be any. If they can establish a close season for one week, 

 they can for one year; it is the assertion of dominion that is important 

 to consider. It is the claim of title that we want to get at, not the 

 very mild, gentle measures that may be adopted. Perhaps they are 

 entirely insufficient and more radical ones ought to be selected; but if 

 they claim the right to establish a close season, they must also, by 

 implication, insist upon, and claim, the right to enforce that close season. 

 How are they to do this except by force? Not only did the Govern- 

 ment of Xew Zealand assert the right, but deleg:ated its authority in 

 these words : 



(2) That the governor of New Zealand might, by orders in council, extend or 

 vary this close season as to the whole colotiji or ami part thereof, for three years or less, 

 and before the expiration of such assigned iieriod extend the close season for another 

 three years. 



If that be proper and correct, if Great Britain has a right to go over 

 a dominion or domain of w^ater extending- some 700 miles, then by what 

 principle may we not adopt those measures, and ask for the adoption 

 of those rules which are absolutely necessary to the object in view? 



The President. — Do you believe that law was ever a])plicable, or 

 ap]ilied in fact to foreigners, and accepted by them? 



Mr. CouDERT. — I intended to say a word upon that, and I will say it 

 now if it is the preference of the learned President. 



In the Argument of Great Britain it is stated : We have made certain 

 statutes, but they only apply to our own citizens — that is to say, take 

 the Irish oysters or the New Zealand seals, I, whose fortune it is to be 

 born and bred and to owe allegiance to the flag of the United States, 

 may take a shij), may man it, may go there and plunder the oyster 

 beds and destroy them; whereas an unfortunate citizen of Great 

 Britain who started at the same time as I, is cai>tured by a lievenue 

 Cutter and very properly sent to gaol. That every ])ossil)le sort of 

 I)rivilege and imnumity should be granted to the rJnited States, I 

 highly desire, but in spite of law arguments emanating from the 

 highest source (and the highest source is before us), I doubt if that 



