312 ORAL ARGUMENT OF FREDERICK R. COUDERT, ESQ. 



sive riglit of sealing has, during 1886 and 1887, been practically maintained by the 

 United .States Government. To this is added a part of the North Pacific Ocean, 

 north 50*^ of north latitude, and which commands the approach of the seals to the 

 passes leading into Behring's Sea. By the adoption of this area and close season 

 the United States -would gain, by consent, what she has for two yeai's held in 

 defiance of international law and the protests of Great Britain and Canada. 



Whether it is in defiance of international law is a question as to which 

 tlie Tribunal may have something to say; but certainly Mr. Bayard did 

 propose this as the only just and reasonable way of protecting the 

 rights of the United States. 



And while this area wonld be held closed to all operations except to those of her 

 own sealers on the Pribylof Islands, the northwest coast of North America up to the 

 50th parallel of north latitude and the sealing areas on the north-eastern coast of 

 Asia would be open to her as before. 



The device. . . 



If successful, would feed and perpetuate the rookeries on St. Paul and St. George 

 Islands. . . 



That is true. Tliat is precisely what we ask — that these rookeries, 

 the only home and place of protection of these animals, should be per- 

 petuated and fostered and taken care of and increased. 



And add immensely to their value, while it cuts off at one blow the most vahiable 

 portion of the high seas from .all particijiation by the sealers of all other nations. 



It is to be borne in mind that Canada's interest in this industry is a vital and 

 important one, that she has had a very large capital remuneratively employed in it, 

 and that while by the proposed jjlan the other Powers chiefly interested have their 

 compensations, Canada has none. To herit wonld mean ruin, so far as the sealing 

 industry is concerned. 



Mr. Bayard appeals to the Government of Great Britain on the grounds of the 

 labour interested in preparing the seal-skins in London. 



It appears in the Case that thousands of hands are employed in London in pre- 

 paring these skins. 



It is not necessary that the Alaska Commercial Company should do the sole catching 

 of seals in order to retain this advantage to London labourers. The sealskins taken 

 by Canadian sealers find their way to London to be dressed, just as surely as do 

 those taken by the United States Company. So long as the fishery is not exhausted, 

 Loudon will, other things being equal, retain the advantage she now possesses in 

 this respect. But Mr. Bayard must misapprehend the sense of justice of Her 

 Majesty's Government, if hesupposes that they would consent to an unjust deprivation 

 of Canadian rights, because of the alleged prospect of perpetuating some small pecun- 

 iary adviintage to a limited section of her subjects in London. Under this proposal 

 Russia would lose nothing. Her A^essels do not now pursue seals in that part of 

 Behring's Sea ceded by her to the United States in 1867. Russia has valuable seal 

 islands of her own : the Commander Islands in Behring's Sea, and Robben Reef in the 

 Okhotsk Sea, on which there are valuable rookeries, and the Russian Government 

 dr.aws a considerable revenue therefrom, as they are under lease to this same Alaska 

 Commercial Company. This part of Behring's Sea does not fall within the proposed 

 closed area. 



It has been already shown that the United States would gain largely by the estab- 

 lishment of this close period. 



The President. — Is that the same Alaska Commercial Company 

 that had control over the Russian fishery? 



Mr. CouDEET. — Not tlie present lessees — not since the change in the 

 lease; but at the time this gentleman was writing. 



Sir Charles Russell. — It was the same at the time that letter was 

 written. 



The President. — They are separate now? 



Mr. CoUDERT. — Yes. 



From her rookeries on the Pribyloff Islands she draws now a yearly revenue of over 

 300,000 dollars. This would not only not be interfered with, but would be enor- 

 mously increased by reason of the perpetual monopoly she would enjoy under the 

 proposed arrangement. 



If the prosperity of one country is an argument to be used by another 

 country in defence of malpractice, of course this is a very strong argu- 



