ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 309 



Pnnl, during the months of June, July, September, and October of each year, the 

 United States Government allows the slaughter of seals to the number of lbO,000 by 

 certain citizens of that country known as the Alaska commercial company, for which 

 monopoly the United States Government is paid a yearly revenue of more than 

 300,000 dollars. 



The Tribunal will observe the use of this word "monopoly", which 

 is repeated ad nauseam throughoat the case. It appears, i)erhaps, for 

 the first time ofticially here; but it has been adopted, and may possibly 

 account for the feeling exhibited by the British Commissioners in their 

 open and bitter antagonism to the killing as practised on the Pribilof 

 Islands. 



From the very nature of the case it must be a monopoly. It is evident 

 that if safety and protection of seal can only be accomplished by killing- 

 on land, the only persons who can do the killing on land are the pro- 

 prietors of the land. 



Senator Morgan. — I suppose you mean a monopoly as to that herd — 

 not as to the Japanese herd or Eussian herd. 



Mr. CouDERT. — Probably, because it is the only herd that is spoken 

 of; and I call attention to that expression. It is a mischievous one; 

 it is, in one sense, I think I may say without discourtesy, an improper 

 one. If it be a monopoly, it is simply so ex necessitate ret. It cannot 

 be otherwise than a monopoly. If you throw the business on the 

 islands open, so that it is not a monopoly, that simi)ly means raiding, 

 and all parties agree that raiding means destruction. In fact, the 

 assertion of the right to kill on the islands (which is the monopoly com- 

 plained of), is simply, I may call it, a right to tax — it is a right to levy 

 a tax. One of the experts, (to whose evidence I shall call attention) 

 says with Gallic humour, sense, and justice that it is an impot stir les 

 celibataires. But it is not necessary for me to depart, swerve — or as 

 Sir Charles Eussell would call it — to "shy", from my subject. I am 

 simply speaking of this as a monopoly, and I say the power to tax is a 

 power to slay; and I might better put it by quoting an expression 

 which Mr. Justice Harlan is familiar with — the power to tax is the 

 power to destroy because it is an expression used by your great chief 

 justice; and it shews if we have the power to tax alone we have the 

 power to conserve and the i)ower to destroy. I object to the word 

 monopoly, and that is the reason I stopped here to shew the Court that 

 it was unjustly and unfairly used in view of the features of this case. 



At no season of the year, and to no other persons whatever, is it permitted to kill 

 a single seal within what is claimed as the limits of the Territory of Alaska. 



That is true. We do not allow people to come on our islands and 

 kill our seals except with our permission. 



It is evident, therefore, that there is no part of the year when citizens of any 

 country, with the sole exception of the Alaska Commercial Company, can legiti- 

 mately kill seals within the limits named ; and when Mr. Phelps stated to Lord Salis- 

 bury that no attempt had been made by the authorities of the United States to stop 

 the fishing there of any vessels at the time when it was legitimate, his statement 

 should be read in conjunction with the fact that there is no period of the year when 

 it is h'gitimate for any vessels to fish for seals in the waters of Alaska. 



The proposal to fix a close time is based by Mr. Bayard upon the alleged necessity 

 of immediate measures to prevent destruction of the seal fishery in Behring's Sea 

 and the North Pacific Ocean. 



Your Honours will see that even at that time — that is in July 1888 — 

 the Canadians were well informed that killing of seals in the North 

 Pacific Ocean, was one of the grievances of which the United States 

 complain. 



It is not clear from any information at present possessed that any pressing and 

 absolute necessity exists for any such measures, so far as shown by the present con- 

 dition of that fishery in the North Pacific. 



