The first part of the argument of the American counsel before the Paris Arbitration Tribunal consisted of a most suggestive half-dozen pages, prepared by Mr. James C. Carter, in answer to the question, "What law is to govern the decision?" Mr. Carter declares that it must rest upon international law, which he defines as the "general standard of justice upon which civilized nations are agreed." This standard is fixed neither as to time nor place, and depends largely on the character of the interests involved. Existing as law without legislation, it controls and influences governments much as public opinion influences individuals. Indeed, international law may be considered as the public opinion of nations, and like other public opinion it may be depended upon to support extreme measures in extreme cases.
If the claim of the United States regarding the evil consequences of pelagic sealing are valid, and its absolute prohibition the only means of preventing the annihilation of the fur-seal species, the method of treatment adopted in 1886 and 1887—being, in fact, that followed by the Russian Government for many years—would be entirely justifiable, provided the value of the species to mankind was so great as to bring to such a policy the support of the public opinion of nations. It is now too late to discuss this question, however, for the nation is in honor bound to respect and abide by the Paris award, no matter how unreasonable and inadequate it may be. It is difficult to see what good will come from further discussions, investigations, or declarations. Until the regulations adopted at Paris are "abolished or modified by common agreement between the Governments of the United States and of Great Britain" they must stand.
Great Britain appears to be well satisfied with them, and ought to be if they have so affected legitimate sealing on the islands that "English interests in the fur-sealing industry now exceed American."
The heroic treatment resting on asserted exclusive jurisdiction and property rights, the basis of which was so strongly argued by Mr. Justice Harlan and Senator Morgan at Paris, is now estopped by the denial of such jurisdiction or rights in the decree of the tribunal appealed to. The artifice of branding female seals, which was to be resorted to extensively during the current season, will in no way diminish the number taken at sea, for the brand can be found only after the seal is killed, and it can not injure the skin enough to make the business unprofitable. Besides, it is an expedient hardly worthy the dignity of a great nation. Is it not the part of wisdom, then, to accept the situation? Already the cost of maintaining the struggle, the expense of commissions, policing fleets,
