The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1893-04-20
CARRIERS PLEA FOR SEALS
Uncle Sans Lawyer Scores Several
Strong Points in the Behring Sea Case.
Britain's Methods Used to Illustrate Americas
Righis-Complaint Against the London
Times-Belgian Voters.
MR.. CARTER MlsREPREsENrED.
The London Times Incorrectly Reports tn
UtIerahces of the American Lawyer

The London Times Incorrectly REPORTS the
Utrerahces of the American Lawyer
PARIS, April l9-Mr. j. c. Carter. of
counsel for the United States in the pro-
ccedinus before the Behring sea tribunal of
arbitration, makes q request that publicity
be given to the following statement:
Yesterday Dir. Carter complained 10 the Baron
DE Courcelles. president OF the tribunal or arbi-
tratiOn. OF misrepresentation OF his remarks In
the report or last Fridays proceedings as pub
llshed In the London Times. In this report Mr..
Carter was represented as referring to the Amer
lean Judge Dawson as a rwo-penny- half-peD-
ny judge Mr.. Carter explained that he had
said nothing in the least paragiEg OF that dis
really said was that the United States could not
he held responsible for the reasons which judges
assigned for their decisions. Ii IL were SO the
United States government might be held answer
able for the decisions of any two-penny justice
OF the peace. He MIR. CarterI had never said
that the Judgment given by Judge Dawson. con-
defining British schooners seized In Behring sea.
was incorrect. On the contrary. ne believed
that Judgment TO be sound. and should endeavor
TO defend IL.
The Judgment spoken of by Mr.. Carter
was thar delivered by Judge Dawson IN
the United States District Court OF ALASKA.
in the cases of the schooDers Dolphin. Anna
Beck. Grace and Ada. which opinion wide
~ reviewed the claims In relation Go Beh-
ring sea and the evidence in support or
those claims. and directed that Judgment
In resuming his argument before the tri-
bunal Of arbitration to-day MIR. Carter
claimed that the seals were not ferB
nature, but private property. when
nourished and tended by man. Mr.. Car
ter quoted cases in support of this
conten ton and notably the case of Morgan
VS.. the Earl of Abergavenny. which re-
suited in q decision that deer were private
property, similarly TO geese and swans.
being wild until cultured. The seals fre-
QuentinR the PribyIoff islands were. Mr..
Carter commended, guarded and cherished
by the United States. and. therefore. spe-
cies of husbandry was formed, giving q
property right in the seals The line of ar
gunients presented by Mr.. Carter in sup
port of the claim of ownership in the seals
was so intricate and technical that the
president of the tribunal frequently ones
toned him in regard to the statements
made.
Continuing. Mr.. Carter said that Great
Britain claimed the right to prey upon ami
mails whose very existence to-day was due
TO the efforts Of the United States. The ex-
termination Of seal life In Behring sea had
been prevented 10y the United States. and
this action OF the United States was worthy
of the recognition of humanity who still
benefited from the seal industry. Mr.. Car
ter then diverged from tho main line OF his
argument TO discuss the abstract question
of property. Baron De CouTcsl asked
whether he wished to enter into the con-
sideration of the sooialistio theory. After
replying affirmatively, Mr.. Carter quoted
Prondnon's maxim, Property is robbery"
and cited cases IN which the rights OF hu-
manity had been enforced against private
and national rights. For instance.
no said. in 1910 Great Britain. with
the approval of tho world. had
made war against China TO compel
the opening of Chinese ports. IL the conn
tries growing Peruvian bark should de-
clare they intended to destroy the plant the
other countries in the world would be justi-
lied in interfering. in the name OF human
ity, to prevent such destruction. The right
OF property might include In most cases
the right 20 destroy. but thousands OF laws
existed to preserve to humanity the use of
the product of certain kinds of property.
Why did Great Britain occupy Egypt to-
dayf What grounds had she for holding
domin on over those poor Egyptanss Was
Ii merely because they were Impoverished
and undefendedf No: 1t was because Egg of
lay along the pathway 20 Great Britain's
mighty commerce with the East. II the
Egyptian government was unable to Assure
to Great Britain the safety of this path
way. Great Britain was justified In her in
reference.
Baron De Couroel--You seem to take a
very high view of the SUI beet. You antici.
pate the verdict of history.
Senator Morgan Ito Mr.. Carterl-If this
tribunal decide that the United States dc
not own the scala, ought the United States
TO repeal all laws concerning seal life IL
BebriDg sea.
Mr.. Carter-I think not. but the Question
10 nnimportant as in the event Of such q
decision there would soon be no seals
Permission of pelagc sealing means the
determination of seal life.