Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1893-05-04
Mr.. COUDERT SPEAKING
The Necessity for Protecting the Bsr-
ing Seal Herd.
WE MIGHT CLIP THE SEALS EARS
And Brand Them While on the
Islands, is One of MIR. Couderts
Suggestions-The Fluency OF
His Language Amazes and
Holds the Attention of His
Hearers.

PA<gs, May3.-At the meeting. .ohths
BERN ASea tribunal Of arbitration to-
day the hon. John w. Foster agent for
the United States, informed the trfou-
nal that an AQSnentic report OF the
speech deliversdc James c. Carter, Of
counsel for the Urseed States, would be
presented this week.
T. r. Coudert, OF cdSnsel for the
United States, then spoke. giving an
outline of the arguments whic9 he pro-
posed to offer in support OF Mr.. Carter.
The defence of the sealing industry In
Bering Sea by the United States wis.
Mr.. Coudert declared. imperative, and
an attack on the sealing industry was
an attack on the United States. The
United States raised the seals OF the
Pribyloff Islands In the same sense that
Australia raised sheep, and it was Inn
possible that the nurture and culture OF
the seal could exist In common with
pelagic sealing. The seals at the Priby-
loff, Islands, continued Mr.. Coudert,
were absolute property, just as cattle
and sheep were absolute property.
Sir Charles Russell, Of counsel fer
GECIb DIllhtDt bcio IeeeH "'sN
the remark: Certainly not"
Mr. Coudert admitted that proof as to
ownership was impossible. Some prop
ositions were self-evident, although they
could not be demonstrated by proof.
However, when the seals were at the
islands they could be branded and their
ears clipped. The British commission
ers recognized that the seals were Amer
lean property when they said that the
guard was inefficient TO protect tho
seals from raiders.
In that statement the right OF the
United States 10 protect the seal within
a certain limit was recognized, aud IL
was absurd TO say that the United
States was unable TO protect the seals
outside Of that limit. Seals, Mr.. Cond-
ert argued, were not ferg ndttrg. The
British argument was not helped by
that Latin term. Mr.. Coudert went on
to describe seal.life. The seal, he said,
was not a marine animal. Ii goes 10
sea only 10 seek food. IL possessed the
dnimtrn rercrtendi, and the title to the
seal as absolute property was undenia-
BILE. The United States did not inter-
fere with the freedom OF the seals
which existed for peaceful purposes, and
II was not wrong-doinR on the hirt-at
the United States TO promote. Instead
OF impeding the culture OF those anil
mails.
The attention Of the members OF the
court, OF counsel and spectators is riv-
eted by Mr.. Couderts remarkable hu-
ency OF speech.
Mr.. Coudert devoted bis argument Ia
the afternoon to proving the necessity
OF prohibiting pelagic sealing In order
TO preserve the race OF seals.
Continuing. the Chancellor said that
the Federal governments were resolved
TO employ all tho constitutional means
in their power to attain their OBJECT
Cries OF "brayo.' The rejection OF tho
bill would adversely affect the political
situation.
Primes Bismarck, the greatest dIplo-
matte genius seen In several centuries,
had regarded the strengthening OF the
army as an absolute necessity. In fact,
IL was an open question whether AZ tho
present moment the army was strong
enough TO take the offensive. against
France alone. 1--WE cannot" said tho
Chancellor, "be indifferent 70 the
fate OF our frontier provinces. The ma
tIon desires 10 protect Alsaee- Lorraine.
lAppIause. On the day OF mobilization
a well filed cartridge pouch will be OF
greater value than purse full of
money. The rejection OF the bill viii
create abroad so impression that there
is weakness here"
The ChanceIlor's speech was received
with loud applause.