New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-04-20
PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SEALS.
THE CLAIM OF AMERICAN OWNERSHIP UP
HELD
TECHNICAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE 3EH2ING
SEA ARBITRATORS-MR. CARTER
MAKES CORRECTION

MAKES CORRECTlON
Paris. April lo.-ln rrsuning his argument before
the Behring Sen Tribunal Of Arbitration to-day. Mr..
Carter claimed that the seals not fcrac nlturae
but private property when neurishcd and tended by
man. Mr. Carter quoted In support OF this
contention. and notably the OF Morgan against
the Earl Of Abergavenny which resulted In decision
that deer were private property. similarly to bees ana
swans. being Wild until cultured. fhe seals fro
quenting the Pribylov Islands were, Mr. Carter con
tended guarded and cherished by the United states
ard therefore a species OF husbandry was formed
giving property right In the seals.
The line Of the arguments presented bv Mr.. Carter
In support OF the claim Of American ownership In the
seals WAS 80 intricate md tcchria that the president
of the tribunal felt obliged frequently TO ntepose with
questions II. regard TO the statements made
Mr. Carter said that Great Britain claimed the right
to prey upon animals whose very exiseiUe today
due 70 the Efforts of the United States. The
exterminatien Of seal nfe in Bchring sea had been
prevented by the United States. and this action OF
the United states was worthy "f the recognition OF
humanity, who stin benefited from the sealing In
Gustry.
Mr. Carter then divcrged from the main line Of his
argument TO discuss the abstract question Of prop
erty Baron de ColuCel asked whether he wished
10 enter into the consideration Of the eocialistic
theory. After replying aiirmativey. Mr. Carter
quoted Pfoudhons maxim: Property Is robbery, ana
cited cases in which the rights OF humanity had been
enforced against private and national rights For In
stance, no said, in 16TO Great Britain. With the ap-
proval Of the world, had made war against China ~
compel th. opening Of the Chinese ports. ~ the
countries growing Peruvian bark should declare their
ention destroy the plant the other countries OF
the world would be Justified In Interfering. In the
name OF huinantys right 10 prevent such destr''c'
ton The right Of property might include. In most
cases. the right to destroy. but thousands OF laws en-
listed TO preserve 10 humanity the use OF the product
OF certain kinds OF property.
Why did Great Britain occupy Egypt today MT.
Carter asked. What grounds had She for holding
dominion over those poor Egyptlansl Was II merely
because they impoverished and undefended' NJ; ;
II was because Egypt lay along the pathway to Great
Britains mighty commerce with the East II the
Egyptian Government unable to assure to Great
Britain the safety OF this pathway, Great Britain was
justified IN her interference.
Baron de Courcei-lou seem 10 take very hgh
view Of IN. subject You anticipate the verdict OF
history
Senator Morgan TO Mr. CarterD-lf this tribunal de-
eide that the United states do not own the seils
ought the United States 10 repeal all laws concerning
seal life in Behring Sea
MIR. Csrer-l think not. but the question Is unin
uortant a, in the event Of such decision there
would soon be seals Permission OF pelagic scar
Ing means the determination OF seal life
Al this point the Court ADJOURNED
MIR. Carter makes a request that publicity be given
to the following statement:
YESTERDAY Mr. Garter complained TO the baron
de Courcsl president Of the Tribunal Of Arbltfauoh
OF a Misrepresentation OF his remarks In the report
Of last Fridays proceedings. as published In me
London Tines In this report Mr. Carter was
represe ened as referring TO the American judge Da"
SON as a twopenny -lalipenny Judge. Mr.. Carter '2
plaued that had ai, nothing Ia, the lsast dipdFas
ing of tnat distinguished and very worthy )nusc
What he had really said that the United states
could not BE- held responsible for the reasons winch
Judges assigned for their decisions. II II were 3d.
the United States Government might be heiq anN"'r
nbl. for lie decisions of any twopcnny Justhc "l
the Peace. lie llr. Carter had never SAID mat lndi
mcnt given by Judge Dawson. condcinhlhR Di1il>H
schOonc!s seized in lelring sea- was incorrect. %.
th. contrary he believed That judgment 10 pe sonhi
and should endeayor to defend II. The Judgment
spoken OF by Mr.. Carter was that delivered by ,u9Se
I;av.ou iu the United states District Court OIL AL-h
in The cases of-lhe schooncrs Dolphin. Anna Beck
Grace and Ada. which opinion widely reviewed 'he
claims III relation To Behrng Sea ana the "Vdeic" III
support Of those claims. and directed that judgment
OF forfeiture he issued against the vessels