74 COUNTEE-CASE OF GREAT BRITAIN. 



Nor have the lessees any rights in the fur-seals swim 

 ming in thenoii-teiTitorial waters of Behring Sea, for their 

 Ibid., p. 106. lease, dated the 12th March, 1890, grants them for a term, 

 in accordance with the Statute, merely — 



the exclusive right to engage ia the business of taking fur-seals on 

 the Islands of St. George and St. Paul, in tlie territory of Alaska, and 

 to send a vessel or vessels to said islands for the skins of such seals. 



THE LESSEES CLAIM NO INTEREST IN THE PRESENT 



DISPUTE. 



So lately as the 20th June, 1891, the lessees disclaimed 



British Case ^^^ interest in the present subject of discussion. By a docu- 



Appeudix, vol! mcut of that date, they protested against the stop which 



state?°No.''atheir Government, in breach of the contract, had put on 



0892)," p. 47. their business by agreeing to the modus vivendi, saying: 



Said Company assumes that the right of the United States or its 

 lessee to take fur-seals oa said islands within our unquestioned 

 85 jurisdiction is beyond dispute, and not subject to question or 

 interference by England or any other foreign State. 



The right of this Government to take fur-seals on its oicn territory is not 

 one of the questions to he submitted to arMtration, and has no relation 

 to the contention between the two countries. lu that dispute Great 

 Britain affirms ard the United States denies the right of English and 

 Canadian poachers to slaughter fur-seals in "our part" of Behring Sea, 

 and this Company respectfully insists that the agreement between the 

 two Governments set forth in the President's Proclamation, in so far 

 as it prohibits said Company from taking its lawful quota of seal- 

 skins, is in contravention of the vested rights of this Company, and 

 siibjects it to great loss. 



If it may be assumed, as England has asserted, and this Govern- 

 ment has denied, that the eastern portion of Behring Sea is not the 

 ' marine territory of the United States, but it is the "high seas," the 

 Company respectfiilly submits that it is not competent for Great 

 Britain and the United States alone, or for any other two Govern- 

 ments, to determine who shall be permitted to navigate those waters, 

 or to prohibit fishing or taking seals on the high seas; and the Com- 

 pany respectfully points out to the Honourable the Secretary of the 

 Treasury that its rights have been overlooked by said Agreement 

 between the two Governments, in that it deprives the lessee from taking 

 seals which it is authorized to take by law and its Contract ivith the United 

 States, thereby inflicting a severe loss upon said Company, in order to obtain 

 the consent of England to arbitrate the question as to the right of Canadian 

 poachers to destroy the seal industry by ^pelagic sealing. 



THE VOLUNTARY RETURN OF THE SEALS TO THE ISLANDS 

 DOES NOT MAKE THEM THE SUBJECT OF PROPERTY. 



Before concluding this portion of the Chapter it is neces- 

 sary to say a few words on Contention (o.), which has two 

 propositions of fact of a somewhat bold and sweeping char- 

 acter, viz., that the identity of each seal can be established 

 with certainty, and that at all times during its winter migra- 

 tion the seal has a fixed intention or instinct which induces 

 it to return. Assuming, for the sake of argument only, the 

 accuracy of these propositions, they in no way bring the 

 case within the authorities cited above as to the conditions 

 under which property is acquired in animals of wild nature : 

 for to do this (1) the' seal must be identified, not only as 

 coming from the Pribyloff Islands, but as having been 

 tame or reclaimed while there; and (2) its intention must 

 be not only to return to the islands, which even wild and 

 unreclaimed seals would do of their own accord, but to 

 return to the control and care of their owner. 



