ried on by a few hundred or a few thousand Indians; but that is another matter. The difference you make is whether they are Indians or civilized?

"Mr. CARTER. Yes.

"The PRESIDENT. Suppose the Indians engage in commerce also, selling or bartering the skins. You would allow that also? "Mr. CARTER. When it is not destructive.

"The PRESIDENT. It is a question of proportion, a question of measure, with you?

"Mr. CARTER. If it is destructive, then it is not to be allowed. They have no right to destroy this race of animals.

"The PRESIDENT. In order to give you satisfaction, the question would be to know what limits the pelagic sealing may be carried to without being destructive?

"Mr. CARTER. Yes; that is practically the question; if you can say that pelagic sealing can be carried on without being destructive.

*

"The PRESIDENT. By Indians, at any rate?

"Mr. CARTER. By Indians in their canoes, in the way in which it was originally carried on. That does not threaten the existence of the herd.

"The PRESIDENT. That is a natural limitation.

"Mr. CARTER. It is possible to do this. It would be possible for the people, now engaged in pelagic sealing, to say, 'The Indians are permitted to engage in pelagic sealing. We are prevented from doing it. We will just employ these Indians.' "The PRESIDENT. That is the difficult point. It was the point I just hinted at.

*

"Mr. CARTER. Yes; they might say, 'We will employ those Indians. We will employ them to do the work which we are prohibited from doing. The Indians are perfect sealers. They can destroy this race as quickly as anybody else, if you hire them to go out there as pelagic sealers. That can not be done; and when the question comes whether they are to be permitted to exterminate a race of animals like the seal, not for the purpose of supplying themselves, but because they are the employees of men who are prohibited from doing it, of course you must prohibit them as well.

"The PRESIDENT. That is their livelihood also?

"Mr. CARTER. The livelihood of the Indians. They have a right to pursue their livelihood as long as it is confined to getting the seal for the purpose of clothing for their bodies or for meat; but when they want to engage in commerce and clothe themselves in broadcloth and fill themselves with rum in addı. tion to their original wants, and for that purpose to exterminate a race of useful animals, a different problem is presented. "But practically it would be of no account. The only way in which they pursue or ever have pursued the seals is in open boats, going out short distances from the shore. They can take a few seals that approach the shore rather more closely. The pelagic sealing that threatens the existence of the herd is

carried on by means of large vessels provided with perhaps a dozen or fifteen or more boats and a very large crew, which follow the seals off at sea, it may be hundreds of miles, capable of standing any weather and continuing on the sea for months." Mr. Carter also discussed the question of Property in the In- the property which the United States Govdustry on the Pribernment asserts in the industry carried on by ilof Islands. it on the Pribilof Islands, irrespective of the question whether they have property in the seals or not." He assumed as facts that this industry was established and developed by Russia with care, labor, and expense; that it was not interfered with during the time of the Russian occupation; that the United States continued to carry it on "without interference until pelagic sealing was introduced;" that "they succeeded in securing the entire annual increase of these animals and devoting it to the purposes of commerce without diminishing the stock, and that by means of this industry the stock of seals has been actually preserved." The industry thus established and carried on was, declared Mr. Carter, “unquestionably a full and perfect right"-a "lawful" and "useful" occupation-against which nothing was asserted but the alleged right of pelagic sealing, which was "in itself" a wrong. The right to the industry was founded on "a natural advantage peculiar to the spot," and it was a "national" industry, since it required for its conduct the establishment of rules and regulations which could be carried into effect only by the authority of a nation.

the Industry.

The "national industry" thus created, Mr. The Right to Protect Carter maintained that the nation had the right to protect against the attempts of the citizens of another nation, for their own temporary benefit, to come and break it up. In this relation he said:

"Let me illustrate that. I may assume that there are races of fishes which regularly visit a shore. They may not be the property of the owners of that shore, they may not be the property of the nation which holds dominion over that shore; nevertheless, it is possible by making rules and regulations to create an industry in them; and when that is done there is a thing, a creation, which that nation has a right to maintain against the attacks of the people of other nations.

The PRESIDENT. That would create a right of protection over the species?

66

Mr. CARTER. That is what I am arguing; it would give a

right of protection; the right of protection stands upon the industry which is created.

"The PRESIDENT. Your argument goes to show that the right extends beyond the limits of the islands.

we

Mr. CARTER. Yes; we have the right to carry on the industry upon the islands; and, having that right, when the carrying on of the industry is prevented by wrongful acts in other places, we have the right to protect ourselves by repressing those acts. Turning to the Argument on the part of Great Britain, The case of Oyster, have it admitted here that it is competent Pearl and Coral Beds. to particular nations to assert for themselves the exclusive benefits of an industry connected with oyster beds, pearl-fishery beds, and coral-reef beds, although they are out on the high seas beyond the territorial three-mile limit, and to assert that right against the citizens of other nations. They say it is a property right to the bottom, and that it exists wherever the bottom may be occupied, and does not exist where the bottom can not be occupied. Well, that amounts to this, then, that wherever a nation can occupy the bottom, although outside the territorial limits, it may rightfully occupy it and exclude other nations from it. But how can you occupy the bottom of the sea? Well, you can occupy it only by taking such possession as is possible. You can buoy it where you can reach the bottom, and establish a naval force and exclude the citizens of other nations from it; and that is all the occupation of the bottom that you can effect. Now, that goes much further than the argument of the United States, no part of which supports a general right to thus occupy the sea outside the three-mile limit. If the right to establish the industry rest upon an ability to occupy the bottom, then you can establish one wherever you can reach bottom; and if you can establish it in one place, you can estab lish it in another. I do not suppose it is possible to defend any right like that over the high seas. I do not suppose it is possible to defend any such right as that over the fisheries of the seas. There must be some other principle which may be called into play.

* * *

"These regulations are found in the cases of oyster beds, coral beds, beds where the pearl fishery is carried on, beds which are found in a certain proximity to the coast of a coun try, and which can be worked more conveniently by the citizens of that country than any other. Those are the cases

in which it can be done, and in those cases it is perfectly justifiable. It is where there is a natural advantage, within a certain proximity to the coast of a particular nation, which it can turn to account better than the citizens of any other nation. In such cases, if the particular nation is permitted to establish and carry out a system of national regulation, it may furnish a regular, constant supply of a product of the seas for the uses of 5627-55

mankind, which product, if it were thrown open to the whole world, would be destroyed.

"In the protecting of industries of that sort, does the nation extend its jurisdiction over those places? Does it make them a part of its territory? Certainly not.

* All that it is necessary for it to do is to enforce such regulations on those places as are effective and sufficient to protect the right from invasion by the citizens of other nations. If the coral beds can be protected from invasion far out at sea, if the pearl beds can be protected from invasion by municipal regulations operative upon the sea, why should not this fishery be protected in the like way? It requires no greater exercise of authority. It requires no straining whatever of the ordinary rules which govern the conduct of nations in respect to their interests. It is a more illustrative instance, by far, than the case of the coral beds, or the pearl beds, or the oyster beds; a more illustrative instance for the application of the principle that the nation may protect the industry which has thus been created.

"To make it entirely analogous, if these seals were in some manner attached to the bottom, if they were in the habit of congregating at some particular place on the bottom of the sea, then, according to the doctine which seems to be made the foundation of the right by our friends on the other side, the United States would have a right to go out and take possession of that bottom, incorporate it into its own territory, and treat it as a part of its own nationality.

"I am sure we assert no such right as that. We do not ask to go to any such length as that. All we ask is the right to carry on the industry on our own admitted soil, and to protect it from being broken up by repressing acts upon the high seas which are in themselves essential wrongs."

Protection Required.

Having discussed the claim of a right to proThe Nature of the tect the sealing industry established on the Pribilof Islands, Mr. Carter proceeded to consider what "action" the United States might take for that purpose. Protection could not, he said, be afforded by legislation, since legislative power did not extend over the sea; but it might be afforded "by the exercise of executive power-au exercise of natural power-an exercise of what you may call force." The nation had the right to protect the industry, "just as any individual has a right to protect his property, where there are no other means, that is, by force." Pursuing this subject, Mr. Carter said:

"Individuals can defend their rights and property by the employment of force to a certain extent. If a man attacks me, I may resist him and subdue him and use violence upon him

for that purpose; and I may go as far as it is necessary for that purpose; not further. Whatever force it is necessary to employ to defend myself, I may employ against him. So if a man comes upon my property, I may remove him, if I have to carry him five miles; and I may employ as much force as is necessary for the purpose of removing him from my property; but I can not employ any more force than is necessary. * What can nations do? They can only use this same sort of self-defensive power that an individual does. This is all. That they can use under all circumstances, limited, however, by the same rules and by the same boundaries which limit it in the case of an individual-necessity.

"We may make that very plain and palpable by turning to admitted instances of the exercise of it, and take for that purpose what are commonly called belligerent rights. Here is a nation engaged in war. It blockades the enemy's ports. The ship of a neutral nation, friendly to both parties, undertakes to enter that blockaded port, and the belligerent that has established the blockade captures her by an exercise of force, carries her into one of his own ports, and confiscates her, and sells her.

*

"That is not legislative power. It was not exerted by reason of any extension of the sovereignty of the nation over the seas. It was simply an exercise of self-defensive power, standing upon the principle of necessity, and limited by the principle of necessity. You can enter even the territory of a friendly state, if it is necessary for the purpose of protecting yourself against your adversary; and even when there is no condition of war. They had a rebellion in Canada some years ago, and a vessel was fitted out by persons making use of the soil of the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion, as it was called. A British military force crossed the Niagara River, captured that vessel in the territory of the United States-not on the high seas, but in the territory of the United States.

"Senator MORGAN. You refer to the Caroline?

"Mr. CARTER. I refer to the case of the Caroline.

"A celebrated instance in history was the seizure by Great Britain of the Danish fleet in the harbor of Copenhagen. There was the fleet of a friendly power. There was absolute peace between Great Britain and Denmark; but Great Britain was apprehensive that that fleet would fall into the possession of France, and the seizure was defended by her ablest statesmen on the ground of necessity. *

*

"The PRESIDENT. Do you not think that all of that takes us out of this sphere of law and right?

"Mr. CARTER. Not at all. We are right within the sphere of law and right.

"The PRESIDENT. I do not think the whole world generally considers it so.

"Mr. CARTER. We are right within the sphere of law; and