Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1893-05-26
THE BEHRLNG SEA CASE.

The Behring Sea case has now virtually
closed, and the presentation of the case Of
the United States has been brilliantly sat
isfactory. The American. advocates not
only had a stronger case than their con-
testants, but they presented 1t with unusual
ability and force. The British advocates
seemed to be taken by surprise by the basis
of the United States contentious, and made
rather unskilled resistance TO it. Through
out, 1t seemed that Messrs Phelps and Car
ter understood their business thoroughly,
while Charles Russell and Churchill were
hampered by an imperfect understanding Of
the case at issue.
The first contention of the British had
been made by Lord Salisbury, in his dis
patches to Secretary Blaine, in which he
laid down the principle that the fur seals
are Jsre nature wild animals) in which
no man can have property until he estab-
fishes it by killing or capturing them.
The American contention took direct issue
with this. 1t was maintained, we believe,
that Lord Salisburys claim was entirely too
broad. For centuries the English Courts
have recognized that there is property in
fdre nature before they are either captured
or killed, A deer or other animal chased
on TO another mans land is the pursuer's
property as long as he is In fresh chase"
of it. But the strongest point was made on
the doctrine of animus reUertendi, which has
been strongly upheld by the English Courts
This doctrine is that If an animal makes its
usual home upon a mans land, and only
leaves that home temporarily to secure food
or water, or for similar purpose, 1t is es-
sentially his property, the same as If IL were
domestic animal, especially is this true If
he has any means Of Identifying IT, Thus a
man has property in bees. which go miles
away, in falcons and other birds, and 10
many so.called wild animals. The mere
fact of their being off his premises does not
give another the right to capture OF kill
them, any more than II would TO capture or
kill an OK or o horse found off the owners
premises.
II was fully established that the seals are
not to be included 10 the same list with the
fish swimming the sea. They are distinctly
animal as pigs and sheep. For eight months
of every year they are domiciled upon our
territory, upon which they breed and which
they leave only rarely and for brief intervals
to feed upon fish, The other four months
they employ in journey, not to the land
OF any other country, but into the ocean,
the highway of the world The poachers
attack and kill them as they are going from
or coming TO our shores-to the only home
they have in the world. There eau be no
installing the fact that they are our seals,
for they differ In most unmstakable way
from the seals of the Rus ian islands and
those iu,4Id anywhere else in the world
The difference is so great as To distinguish
them as effectualy as If they were actually
marked or branded. Killing them in the
sea, therefore, is an otfense of the same na
ture as killing another mans stock which
may be found on the highways or the
praries.
This position seems impregnabe and il
therefore naturally follows that the United
States has the right 10 take such measures
as will protect its property from being DIES
iroyed during its temporary absence from
home, and that without reference TO the
usual three. mile limit OF maritime juris
diction.